Worst atheistic argument?

[tackattack]

I know I was just reaserching the ontological arguement and came across it, thought it would be just as funny here.

[objectivitees]

Any argument that seeks to demonstrate God is "evil" where the presupposition of Atheism is that moral value judgments are subjective.

[tavarish]

Any argument that seeks to demonstrate God is "evil" where the presupposition of Atheism is that moral value judgments are subjective.

That's not the point. Using the immorality argument is valid because Christians look to the Bible for morality that is applicable today. This, by any measurable standard, is pretty ridiculous, as the bible has lots of morally contradictory actions, not to mention the outright malice that God shows in much of the Old Testament.

Subjectivity aside, it's disturbing to use a 2000 year old ancient text based on superstitious assumptions to guide your actions in modern day civilized society. Especially when that text is morally defunct, historically inaccurate, and internally contradictory.

That would be like me using the Code of Hammurabi for a standard of justice. It just doesn't work. Our thinking and actions have evolved past that, I should hope.

[objectivitees]

Any argument that seeks to demonstrate God is "evil" where the presupposition of Atheism is that moral value judgments are subjective.

That's not the point. Using the immorality argument is valid because Christians look to the Bible for morality that is applicable today. This, by any measurable standard, is pretty ridiculous, as the bible has lots of morally contradictory actions, not to mention the outright malice that God shows in much of the Old Testament.

Subjectivity aside, it's disturbing to use a 2000 year old ancient text based on superstitious assumptions to guide your actions in modern day civilized society. Especially when that text is morally defunct, historically inaccurate, and internally contradictory.

That would be like me using the Code of Hammurabi for a standard of justice. It just doesn't work. Our thinking and actions have evolved past that, I should hope.

Yes it is the point. BTW... your assumptions are unwarranted, as I did not point to a "2000 year old text" to make my point. Atheism assumes morality is subjective, then tries to claim something is objectively "evil" to discredit it, and that is self-contradictory. If Atheism obtains, there is no "evil".

[tavarish]

Any argument that seeks to demonstrate God is "evil" where the presupposition of Atheism is that moral value judgments are subjective.

That's not the point. Using the immorality argument is valid because Christians look to the Bible for morality that is applicable today. This, by any measurable standard, is pretty ridiculous, as the bible has lots of morally contradictory actions, not to mention the outright malice that God shows in much of the Old Testament.

Subjectivity aside, it's disturbing to use a 2000 year old ancient text based on superstitious assumptions to guide your actions in modern day civilized society. Especially when that text is morally defunct, historically inaccurate, and internally contradictory.

That would be like me using the Code of Hammurabi for a standard of justice. It just doesn't work. Our thinking and actions have evolved past that, I should hope.

Yes it is the point. BTW... your assumptions are unwarranted, as I did not point to a "2000 year old text" to make my point. Atheism assumes morality is subjective, then tries to claim something is objectively "evil" to discredit it, and that is self-contradictory. If Atheism obtains, there is no "evil".

I never said you did point to a 2000 year old text. I was making the point that many do, and it's the crux of the "God is evil" argument. or were you referring to God creating natural disasters and giving people cancer argument? Be more specific.

If an atheist is making the claim that "God is evil" when they in fact don't believe in God, that would be self contradictory. You can't attribute a quality to something that doesn't exist, at least subjectively. What the argument actually pertains to is that the God portrayed in the Bible and other holy books is immoral. There is valid basis here, as people actually look to these books for moral guidance.

Atheism doesn't assume ANYTHING. It's a disbelief in God or gods. That's it. The people who subscribe to this label are vastly different, and there is no underlying dogma or unifying force, other than perhaps the chastisement of a very religious society. There's nothing in atheism that can't allow for belief in celestial fairies and invisible pink unicorns either.

I think we're mixing concepts here. Let's define good and evil.

Good - describes actions or entities that are for the mutual benefit of society and its members. A form of positive progression.

Evil - describes actions or entities that detract or hinder from the progression of society; a harm-causing regression.

These are my definitions, I'm sure you can add to them.

I agree that if an atheist contends that God is inherently evil, and therefore they do not believe in his existence, that is self-contradictory. I do get the feeling you're not understanding the argument here. Either that, or someone just approached you with a shit point.

[objectivitees]

I never said you did point to a 2000 year old text. I was making the point that many do, and it's the crux of the "God is evil" argument. or were you referring to God creating natural disasters and giving people cancer argument? Be more specific.

Neither. You read into my text ideas that were not present.

If an atheist is making the claim that "God is evil" when they in fact don't believe in God, that would be self contradictory.

It's also self-contradictory when they say god does not exist because he'd have to be evil. And that sir, is what Atheists do when they use the argument from evil. That is simply all I was saying, which is why I cited it as one of the worst examples of Atheist arguments. The rest was your obfuscation based on your eisegesis.

[tavarish]

I never said you did point to a 2000 year old text. I was making the point that many do, and it's the crux of the "God is evil" argument. or were you referring to God creating natural disasters and giving people cancer argument? Be more specific.

Neither. You read into my text ideas that were not present.

I assumed you were talking about the evil argument stemming from the Bible or other Holy book. I understand you're talking about something else entirely, but excuse me if I've never heard such a dumb argument in favor of an atheistic claim. I can see why you would think it's the worst argument, and with good reason.


I've just never seen anyone dumb enough to make such a claim.

I guess it's a "Woops" on my part.

It's also self-contradictory when they say god does not exist because he'd have to be evil. And that sir, is what Atheists do when they use the argument from evil. That is simply all I was saying, which is why I cited it as one of the worst examples of Atheist arguments. The rest was your obfuscation based on your eisegesis.

I have never heard that argument, and it would be simply moronic to make such a statement. I was making the point that you didn't understand the premise on which the argument is based. If you've spoken to atheists who make this claim, I'd be surprised how they got dressed in the morning.


'namsain brah?

[Tiberius]

It's also self-contradictory when they say god does not exist because he'd have to be evil. And that sir, is what Atheists do when they use the argument from evil.

The argument from evil doesn't say such things at all. The argument from evil (also known as the "problem of evil") posits that an omnipotent god is responsible for evil in the universe, thus if he did exist, he would be held accountable for this, and concludes that there isn't a good reason to worship such a being.

In short, it has nothing to do with God's existence.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

See? Nothing about existence, everything about attributes. Unless this is some other argument from evil that exists and is as so far unheard of by myself.

[tavarish]

It's also self-contradictory when they say god does not exist because he'd have to be evil. And that sir, is what Atheists do when they use the argument from evil.

The argument from evil doesn't say such things at all. The argument from evil (also known as the "problem of evil") posits that an omnipotent god is responsible for evil in the universe, thus if he did exist, he would be held accountable for this, and concludes that there isn't a good reason to worship such a being.

In short, it has nothing to do with God's existence.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

See? Nothing about existence, everything about attributes. Unless this is some other argument from evil that exists and is as so far unheard of by myself.

I think someone just gave him a really crappy argument that made no sense.

[Meatball]

I think someone just gave him a really crappy argument that made no sense.

It's like the opposite of the Christ taking the sins of humanity thing. We all get punished everytime a crackpot makes a bad argument.

When you argue against the institution of Captial-A Athiesm and it's absurd subjective morality doctrine, one can assume you argue from the position of a theistic worldview in which morality is something arbitrarily prescribed by your choice deity and applied to humanity as some sort of vast set of rules. Aren't these subjective relative to your deity?

Could you clarify your stance on morality?