I had a conversation recently that went something like this.
Gotta love that logic. [tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]
His circular logic is making me dizzy.
Since I was raised without the “benefit” of religion for most of my life, I guess it’s a miracle I’m not a serial killer.
The argument that bothers me is that “morals come from God.” The C.S. Lewis argument I think. Your morals come from God. Your belief or lack thereof has no effect on the existence of God or His ability to instill you with morals, which He’s obviously done. So your claim of being an atheist and being moral does not in any way counter his claim that morality comes from God.
Atheist: “What would stop you from shooting me right now and stealing my wallet?” Theist: “God.” Atheist: “But if you did shoot me, and you repented, God would forgive you?” Theist: “Yes, the blood of Jesus would cleanse away my sins.” Atheist: Blink, blink, blink. “Anyone know where I can get a Kevlar vest, quick?”
My brain is about to explode trying to make sense of his argument.
That’s one of the more scarier theists. I wonder if he realized the irony of how immoral his statements showed him to be?
So what is going on when people do get shot? God is taking a nap? God is out to lunch?
I understand it perfectly. We should all prove we’re atheists by going on a rampage. Westboro, KS is nice this time of year. :\
Maybe my morals do come from a god and I just don’t know it. So what? Let him have his tiny victory. Such an attitude could prove useful to us. If we all act morally regardless of our belief in such a god, then who cares what we believe? If even the evil heathens are moved by a god, why care about what they think? And why believe in the first place?
Morals certainly do not come from the Bible (Koran, etc.). That’s the idea I really have a problem with.
So, what is the basis of morality in your view of the world?
Wow, that made my head hurt.
That kind of conversation went a little worse for Larry Hooper. Count yourself lucky that you only lost a few brain cells?
Not directed at me, but anyway: Empathy.
Had to take dramamine for that one
What about an atheist who wants tighter gun controls. Would I have to pummel this theist’s head with a chair leg?
Needless to say, that’s not the way the most thoughtful theists make the case.
So… how does that whole free will thing work with his logic? From what I hear that god-fellow’s kind of into free will, or something.
Good. One less theistard contaminating the gene pool.
Theists’ assumptions about how people would behave without God in their lives reveal nothing about God, nothing about people, but much about themselves. They base their assumptions using themselves as the reference. Not all of them do, but those who operate at Kohlberg’s lowest level, minding their manners only under the threat of punishment from the Sky Policeman have difficulty comprehending any higher orientation for moral behavior.
Trying to mix his belief with our logic and putting it in the same context. Dumbest of all kinds for thinking he’s smart.
Um … wow.
If George Carlin relayed that story with only the embellishment of his vocal inflection, it would be a good joke.
I’m a man. To be a man you have to be married. I’m not married. Then you are not a man. But my anatomy is definitely male. Then you must be gay. But I am attracted to women. Then you are a lesbian posing as a man.
I am as freaked out by people who won’t do something simply because “God told them not to” as I am by people who won’t do something simply because it is illegal.
Most don’t seem to realize, and perhaps this is why we need laws in the first place, that laws are enacted because they are self-evident. There wasn’t a big debate over whether or not murder should be legal, it’s a pretty cut and dry topic. Rather, we made it illegal so that we could establish ways of dealing with muderers, and to work out details like self-defense, crimes of passion, etc.
“Theist” fails at basic logic. what he says is.
A: I believe in God. B. I am moral. C. Ergo, you need to believe in God to be moral (conclusion without premise)
D. You do not believe in God. D and C (invalid premise) ergo E: You are immoral (conclusion without premise)
F: God prevents immoral behavior. (conclusion without premise) F, ergo G: You are incapable of immoral behavior (conclusion without premise, also conflicts with E, and therefore D, assuming C, which is also invalid)
It just fails on so many points it’s not even worth my eloquent derision. ^^
I thought this was satire till I read the first line again. Maybe you should shoot him.
Ahh, Richard beat me to the punch on Kohlberg. I was going to post the same thing.
those who operate at Kohlberg’s lowest level, minding their manners only under the threat of punishment from the Sky Policeman have difficulty comprehending any higher orientation for moral behavior.
Absolutely! The reason they can’t comprehend moral behavior without threat of punishment is because they are the kind of people who would behave immorally without threat of punishment.
Seriously, it would have been much easier for the theist to say, “God gave us morals and our peer pressure gave you morals indirectly.”
Don’t worry Xeonicus, there are soooo many opportunities. I’ve made the same remarks several times. You’ll get many chances to beat me to the punch.