5 Faulty Arguments Religious People Use Against Atheists

[_Some Schmo]

Good stuff. These arguments should be familiar enough to anyone who's hung out in these parts... and a few of these are supposed to be the advanced arguments.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Greta was at my school last week (or the week before?). I never did go to her lecture though.

[_Some Schmo]

Greta was at my school last week (or the week before?). I never did go to her lecture though.

Bummer. I'd have liked to have heard your thoughts on her talk.

[_MrStakhanovite]

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

[_gramps]

Well, your wish is google's command.

Here you go:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6916

[_Some Schmo]

Well, your wish is google's command.

Here you go:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6916

Thanks man, that was great.

[_Hughes]

Good stuff. These arguments should be familiar enough to anyone who's hung out in these parts... and a few of these are supposed to be the advanced arguments.

A quote from the article:

The point is that the very nature of religion itself -- the very nature of a belief in the supernatural -- is, in and of itself, harmful, and is more likely to both inspire and rationalize terrible harm than other kinds of ideas.

I don't have space here to make this argument in its most complete form. (I've made a more thorough argument elsewhere.) So here's the quick- and- dirty two-minute version: Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die. It therefore has no reality check. And it is therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self- correction. It is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality... and extreme, grotesque immorality.

First problem is defining what morality is. For an atheist it is by definition arbitrary, and what ever the definer wants it to be.

Second, is one of pinning down exactly the connection between the false belief and the actions. Because it could be argued that the same person (with the false beliefs) might very well be more evil if he didn't have those beliefs. So connecting the actions with the beliefs is nearly impossible. Especially if those beliefs are of a positive nature (IE do not steal... etc.)

[_Some Schmo]

First problem is defining what morality is. For an atheist it is by definition arbitrary, and what ever the definer wants it to be.

That is no different than the morality of a theist. If theistic morality was indeed objective or absolute, all theists would agree on the details, but they clearly don't.

And we certainly can't use the Bible, because I'm sure I could find something in there with god's stamp of approval that you would consider immoral. How could you act as a moral authority on what to reject from the Bible if you don't have your own personal sense of morality?

How is morality "by definition" arbitrary for an atheist anyway? My morality isn't arbitrary at all. It has two basic criteria: is it practical, and does it avoid harming/increase the wellbeing of others?

If you want arbitrary morality, you need look no further than ideas like "no wearing clothes made of more than one type of cloth" or "no sitting in the same chair as a woman who's having her period" or even better, "no having any gods you like better than me!" Now that's arbitrary morality!

Second, is one of pinning down exactly the connection between the false belief and the actions. Because it could be argued that the same person (with the false beliefs) might very well be more evil if he didn't have those beliefs. So connecting the actions with the beliefs is nearly impossible. Especially if those beliefs are of a positive nature (IE do not steal... etc.)

Do you think people commit acts of terror and martyrdom with the idea that they'll be quickly shipped off to paradise to await their families if they didn't believe it? Is there a movement to suppress the basic rights of homosexuals based on something other than beliefs? For what reason does the KKK want to hang African Americans?

I think the link between false belief (any belief, for that matter) and action is all too easy to identify.

And you may want to observe the flipside of your argument: if beliefs don't necessarily lead to actions, then what good is religious morality anyway? Believing you shouldn't steal doesn't lead believers to follow that rule, by your logic.

But of course, I do think that believing it's wrong to steal makes it harder to steal. Do we really need religion to tell us that it's bad to steal?

[_Hughes]

First problem is defining what morality is. For an atheist it is by definition arbitrary, and what ever the definer wants it to be.

That is no different than the morality of a theist. If theistic morality was indeed objective or absolute, all theists would agree on the details, but they clearly don't.

And we certainly can't use the Bible, because I'm sure I could find something in there with god's stamp of approval that you would consider immoral. How could you act as a moral authority on what to reject from the Bible if you don't have your own personal sense of morality?

How is morality "by definition" arbitrary for an atheist anyway? My morality isn't arbitrary at all. It has two basic criteria: is it practical, and does it avoid harming/increase the wellbeing of others?

If you want arbitrary morality, you need look no further than ideas like "no wearing clothes made of more than one type of cloth" or "no sitting in the same chair as a woman who's having her period" or even better, "no having any gods you like better than me!" Now that's arbitrary morality!

Theistic Morality holds to someone greater than themselves who sets all the rules. By comparison, it's not arbitrarily decided by each individual (as it is with atheism) what those rules/morals are.

For example. Theists generally believe that is wrong to steal. Ok... this isn't based on an arbitrary feeling, but rather an edict, believed to have come from God.
For Atheists, there is no "general belief" about stealing. There is no code of ethics that all atheists are expected to adhere to, which state that stealing (for example) is wrong.

You, personally, have decided for yourself that such actions are wrong because they harm the "wellbeing" of another. Well, all of that is based on your own feeling on the matter, by definition atheists don't believe anyone is "greater" so there is no edict that everyone must follow, or by extension, to judge anyone else by. In other words, the most you can say is, "You are violating my definition of what is moral."

What makes it arbitrary? Stealing and not stealing are equally moral by this standard, since the standard is set by each individual and how they feel. Pick the one you like (arbitrarily) and it's moral for you.

Second, is one of pinning down exactly the connection between the false belief and the actions. Because it could be argued that the same person (with the false beliefs) might very well be more evil if he didn't have those beliefs. So connecting the actions with the beliefs is nearly impossible. Especially if those beliefs are of a positive nature (IE do not steal... etc.)

Do you think people commit acts of terror and martyrdom with the idea that they'll be quickly shipped off to paradise to await their families if they didn't believe it? Is there a movement to suppress the basic rights of homosexuals based on something other than beliefs? For what reason does the KKK want to hang African Americans?

I think the link between false belief (any belief, for that matter) and action is all too easy to identify.

And you may want to observe the flipside of your argument: if beliefs don't necessarily lead to actions, then what good is religious morality anyway? Believing you shouldn't steal doesn't lead believers to follow that rule, by your logic.

But of course, I do think that believing it's wrong to steal makes it harder to steal. Do we really need religion to tell us that it's bad to steal?

If you don't think that teaching and believing that it's wrong to steal doesn't make it harder to steal (as a general rule), then aren't you undercutting your own argument that beliefs lead to actions?

[_Some Schmo]

Theistic Morality holds to someone greater than themselves who sets all the rules. By comparison, it's not arbitrarily decided by each individual (as it is with atheism) what those rules/morals are.

Except that you can't show with authority what those rules are. No god has ever made an appearance and said, "These are my rules." All we have is hearsay.

For example. Theists generally believe that is wrong to steal. Ok... this isn't based on an arbitrary feeling, but rather an edict, believed to have come from God.

Yes, but why is that believed?

For Atheists, there is no "general belief" about stealing. There is no code of ethics that all atheists are expected to adhere to, which state that stealing (for example) is wrong.

There is no indisputable, iron clad code of ethics that any group is expected to adhere to. I'd love for you to find my two theists of the exact same denomination and background that agree on every single ethical notion, let alone an entire group.

But just because atheists aren't influenced by a religiously based set of ethics doesn't mean they feel free to do whatever the hell they want to. I hate to break it to you, but I'm an atheist, and I think stealing is wrong. How do you explain that, given that I don't feel compelled to answer to a higher power?

You, personally, have decided for yourself that such actions are wrong because they harm the "wellbeing" of another. Well, all of that is based on your own feeling on the matter, by definition atheists don't believe anyone is "greater" so there is no edict that everyone must follow, or by extension, to judge anyone else by. In other words, the most you can say is, "You are violating my definition of what is moral."

That's true; that's the most I can say. The problem for you is, that's the most you can honestly say too. As I said before, if all theists agreed on one code of ethics, you'd have a point. But they don't, so the best you can say is that everyone has their own code.

What makes it arbitrary? Stealing and not stealing are equally moral by this standard, since the standard is set by each individual and how they feel. Pick the one you like (arbitrarily) and it's moral for you.

Again, if theists were honest with themselves, they'd recognize they're doing the exact same thing. The only difference is they attempt to give their own sense of morality greater weight by attributing it to the divine.

Seriously, ask yourself why you don't feel moved to stone your disobedient children? Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says you should. Why would you disobey this theistically mandated moral behavior?

But of course, I do think that believing it's wrong to steal makes it harder to steal. Do we really need religion to tell us that it's bad to steal?

If you don't think that teaching and believing that it's wrong to steal doesn't make it harder to steal (as a general rule), then aren't you undercutting your own argument that beliefs lead to actions?

You need to reread what I said more carefully, I think.