Atheist arguments and the morality of God.

[jesus_wept]

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.

You appear to have completely missed the point I was trying to make.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Apparently one of us has. Try it again.

---

the above is the ONLY answer to the Epicurean paradox ever offered, and it stinks. 

No, there are others.

As to it stinking, let's see. Number of Christians convinced by it, lots. Number of Christians converted by the Epicurean paradox, not very many at all. It may be based on a lie, a misunderstanding or outright deception, but it is rather clearly effective.

[fr0d0]

I think that's the problem of never having held a theistic POV. Whilst ex theists and theists can understand an atheist position having at some point lived it, atheists simply cannot compute the reasoning and will go as far as to call people liars because of that.

[Cato]

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.

The challenge quickly dismantles the theist argument that religion is required for morality.

[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.

The challenge quickly dismantles the theist argument that religion is required for morality.

No, you could still argue that while the atheist may do those things from time to time, it's by chance, and with religion they are done more frequently, more likely.

[Esquilax]

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?

Well, I don't think it's flawless, and personally to me it's no more than an observation that can be used in response to certain moral claims, but that wasn't the point I'm getting at. My issue is that I don't think the fact that a theist finds the argument unconvincing because they believe god is always good means that the argument is fatally flawed; I think it means that the particular theistic point of view being espoused is flawed.

Someone else's intractability and unwillingness to step outside of their own presuppositions isn't my problem, basically. I'm fine with the idea of attempting to convince someone of things, but if that person won't step out of a mindset that "god is good because god says everything god does is good," and that's the end of the conversation, then it's not my job to work within their framework until that framework can be demonstrated as real.

[max-greece]

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

Actually most of the de-converts I have met rather reached the conclusion on the their own without one single "winning" argument.

To me its a process and it takes time.

The god belief takes some shifting but the only person that can really persuade you is you, imho and all that.

[Cato]

No, you could still argue that while the atheist may do those things from time to time, it's by chance, and with religion they are done more frequently, more likely.

Are you presenting this as a serious argument? Or, are you knowingly grasping at straws for amusement's sake?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The challenge quickly dismantles the theist argument that religion is required for morality.

No, you could still argue that while the atheist may do those things from time to time, it's by chance, and with religion they are done more frequently, more likely.

Care to back that up?

Honestly, that's not the actual point of Hitchens' argument. As Cato has said, it demolishes the notion of the religious mantra that morality, and morally 'good' deeds are only possible because of faith. The actual frequency of these aforementioned 'good' deeds is actually irrelevant. Although I suspect if we got into detail about it, and actually examined even anecdotal evidence, your proposition would probably be false.

[John V]

I think that's the problem of never having held a theistic POV. Whilst ex theists and theists can understand an atheist position having at some point lived it, atheists simply cannot compute the reasoning and will go as far as to call people liars because of that.

Not all atheists do this, but it's not unusual for one to say "I don't understand how theists believe/reject X." IMO, that's a limitation on the atheist's part, not a problem with the theist. I've believed to some extent for as far back as I can remember. But, I'm a person, I talk to people, I read what people write, and I can understand how someone could be an atheist/evolutionist etc. I understand how someone could belong to a different religion from me. Most people are at least professing theists. You should be able to understand them, even if you disagree with them. It's a normal and common human position.