Atheist arguments and the morality of God.

[Jacob(smooth)]

It's a funny thing. When I was a Christian I got pissed off because of weak Christian arguments. Since I started thinking of myself as an atheist, I'm sort of the other way around.

There have been a few "gods a meanie" type threads recently. Has that ever worked?

If you believe in you probably believe that he defines morality. In which case any argument that god acts / has acted in an immoral, or evil, way is De facto flawed. The epicurean paradox has been mentioned a lot. From the perspective of a good christian, this falls to the same logical fallacy as the origin argument falls to atheists.

The argument is basically, " we don't know how the universe, therefore God" . It fails because the logical position knowing that the universe clearly exists, is simply "we don't know how the universe". Accepted ignorance is the logical position.

Now put yourself in a theists shoes for a second. Pretend that you accept as absolute truth the existence of a benevolent God. Now plug in one of the "meanie" arguments. "god is a meanie therefore God can't be good." The logical position for the theist to take then simply "God appears to be a meanie, obviously I don't understand the situation well enough". After all once you've accepted as truth that God is the infinite creator of the universe, how much sense does it make for me, with my limited squashy biological brain, with its 4 dimensional limitations and it's tiny window on the world, and it's very limited information to think I know better than God.

Really, the suffering argument is as weak for the theist as the ultimate origin argument is to the atheist.

[jesus_wept]

If you believe in you probably believe that he defines morality. In which case any argument that god acts / has acted in an immoral, or evil, way is De facto flawed.

It's not the argument that's flawed but the brain of the person who can ignore their cognitive dissonance and make excuses for the psychopathic, egotistical meglomaniac they call god.

[Alex K]

Suffering is real. No deep hidden intentions of the deity can change this. You could argue that suffering is necessary, but since god controls the boundary conditions, he could avoid it, but chooses not to. cue Leibniz

[Esquilax]

If you believe in you probably believe that he defines morality. In which case any argument that god acts / has acted in an immoral, or evil, way is De facto flawed.

If you believe that you've got a lot of demonstrating to do before it can be taken as a rational position such that the theist's "I don't find this convincing" becomes a problem for the argument and not the theist.

If I say that gravity holds us to the earth and someone else tells me they aren't convinced that this is true because they believe that giant space rabbits psychically push us to the ground, their objection doesn't mean my claim is somehow flawed. It means their presuppositions are something they haven't yet established as a valid contention to the claim.

[max-greece]

Fair points Jacob but in reality - would any argument, however sound, actually work?

I tend to approach the morality argument from a different position showing that morality existed massively prior to the origin of any of today's religions, and then prior to the birth of any religion at all.

I then show how morality appears to be a logical development of the biological control methods through evolution, starting with pheromones, through instinct and on to morality. That all we actually need to develop morality is an innate sense of empathy, reciprocation and fairness.

If they're still standing I give examples of moral behaviour in other creatures and then extend that on to inter-species morality.

I regard it as pretty much an unassailable argument - but it still doesn't work.

Converts to date from this = 0.

[Alex K]

Here's a famous anti-religion argument which baffels me to this day with its sillyness: Hitchens' challenge which roughly asks you to name a good moral deed which can only be done with religion. It baffels me not because it is so compelling, but because I don't see what it is supposed to show, and because the retort is so obvious.

[jesus_wept]

Fair points Jacob but in reality - would any argument, however sound, actually work?

No, hence the reason some of them are able to reject evolution, cosmology, geology, physics etc etc to believe in a young earth and a literal bible. It's not that the arguments are flawed, it's simply because they wont listen to reason.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Fair points Jacob but in reality - would any argument, however sound, actually work?

I tend to approach the morality argument from a different position showing that morality existed massively prior to the origin of any of today's religions, and then prior to the birth of any religion at all.

I then show how morality appears to be a logical development of the biological control methods through evolution, starting with pheromones, through instinct and on to morality. That all we actually need to develop morality is an innate sense of empathy, reciprocation and fairness.

If they're still standing I give examples of moral behaviour in other creatures and then extend that on to inter-species morality.

I regard it as pretty much an unassailable argument - but it still doesn't work.

Converts to date from this = 0.

And that's kind of the point isn't it. If an argument never seems to work, then regardless of its truth or internal consistency, it's not a very good argument!

I say that gravity holds us to the earth and someone else tells me they aren't convinced that this is true because they believe that giant space rabbits psychically push us to the ground, their objection doesn't mean my claim is somehow flawed. It means their presuppositions are something they haven't yet established as a valid contention to the claim.

Ok, so it's a flawless argument which doesn't work because the people it's being applied to do not, by definition, have the framework necessary to make it work. Does that not amount to the same thing?

---

Fair points Jacob but in reality - would any argument, however sound, actually work?

No, hence the reason some of them are able to reject evolution, cosmology, geology, physics etc etc to believe in a young earth and a literal bible. It's not that the arguments are flawed, it's simply because they wont listen to reason.

Exactly what theists tend to think about atheists.

And yes, some arguments do work. Else there would be no theist to atheist conversions.

[tor]

The inconsistency lies in different standards for god and man. God is allowed to torture people. People are not. People are obligated to prevent crime. God is not. God makes diseases. People cure them. God doesn't.

For instance when a diseases is cured people thank god even though god made the disease in the first place. And it was cured by the people not god.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It's a funny thing. When I was a Christian I got pissed off because of weak Christian arguments. Since I started thinking of myself as an atheist, I'm sort of the other way around.

There have been a few "gods a meanie" type threads recently. Has that ever worked?

If you believe in you probably believe that he defines morality. In which case any argument that god acts / has acted in an immoral, or evil, way is De facto flawed. The epicurean paradox has been mentioned a lot. From the perspective of a good christian, this falls to the same logical fallacy as the origin argument falls to atheists.

The argument is basically, " we don't know how the universe, therefore God" . It fails because the logical position knowing that the universe clearly exists, is simply "we don't know how the universe". Accepted ignorance is the logical position.

Now put yourself in a theists shoes for a second. Pretend that you accept as absolute truth the existence of a benevolent God. Now plug in one of the "meanie" arguments. "god is a meanie therefore God can't be good." The logical position for the theist to take then simply "God appears to be a meanie, obviously I don't understand the situation well enough". After all once you've accepted as truth that God is the infinite creator of the universe, how much sense does it make for me, with my limited squashy biological brain, with its 4 dimensional limitations and it's tiny window on the world, and it's very limited information to think I know better than God.

Really, the suffering argument is as weak for the theist as the ultimate origin argument is to the atheist.

I don't view the suffering argument as weak at all. But the excuse God-knows-more-about-this-than-YOU-do is simply an argument from ignorance. It more or less translates as, 'God has good and sufficient reasons for allowing the rape and murder of children, mass starvation, genocide, rampant disease, natural disasters that kill millions of innocents and so on. Since God better understands the rationale for this, just belt up and accept it.'

What a load of pretentious shyte THAT is. We are expected to know precisely what God wants us to do in order to attain the heavenly reward, but we aren't allowed to know why God allowed the six years old girl down the block to be raped, tortured and dismembered. Oh, no - the theists want us to smile and accept 'God's will.' Fuck that.

But the above is the ONLY answer to the Epicurean paradox ever offered, and it stinks. No one is claiming we have to know better than God the reasons for suffering, but it is perfectly plausible for an omnipotent God to explain the rationale behind it in a way readily comprehensible to humans.

Hell, I'm not even remotely god-like, and I have an explanation for the existence of suffering that is readily understandable to anyone of normal intelligence. Here is it:

The universe is pitilessly indifferent to your comfort and welfare. When you suffer, you aren't being punished, you aren't being tested. You're simply in the path of natural forces that take absolutely no notice of you. Ta da.

Boru