RE: Worst atheistic argument?
February 18, 2010 at 7:59 pm
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2010 at 8:07 pm by objectivitees.)
(February 18, 2010 at 7:52 pm)tavarish Wrote: objectivitees,
The concept of being facetious eludes you. The fact that you can't understand there is a correlation between morals and principles of survival is pretty comical, however.
Here's a hint - think of society as something needing to reproduce and survive.
here's a hint for you... why does it "need" to survive?
Quote:The fact that you can't understand there is a correlation between morals and principles of survival is pretty comical, however.
I didn't say I didn't see a correlation, I said a correlation does not make them the same thing. If you are going to twist my words to fit your agenda, there is nothing more for us to earn from each other. It's clear you don't understand how logical fallacies (equivocation) defeat your own argument, but it's not "comical".
(February 18, 2010 at 7:51 pm)Tiberius Wrote:(February 18, 2010 at 5:08 pm)objectivitees Wrote: Actually it does, as many Atheists (in fact all I have ever encountered) extend the argument to say that since God is evil (because he's responsible) and ontologically God is supposed to be good, then God cannot exist. (Second law of logic, non-contradiction)Then they were being retarded, and I can only apologise for them and inform you that there is a very different breed of atheist here.
"God" as a general concept includes nothing about the "side" he bats for. God's can by definition either be good or bad. So the only way I could see this being turned into an argument against the existence of God would be in regards to specific Gods (say, Yahweh of Christianity). Of course, such arguments are invalid for a number of other reasons, which is why I don't use them.
By "general concept" do you mean to say the ontological construct?
So far, you seem to be of a "different" breed, but i can't yet say that of everyone here. kudoes to you. (So far. hehe)