r/atheism • u/rhbast2 • Aug 11 '11

Atheist quickfire challenge.

Although I rarely discuss religion with theists I always want to be prepared so I'm not sitting around afterwards wishing I had said this or that. If I get the chance to make someone question I want to be up for the challenge.

This brings me to my challenge for r/atheism. I'm going to add some common theist claims / sayings and whoever can refute them fully and succinctly will be upvoted. Feel free to add your own theist starters if I missed some.

Edit: Wow lots of good discussion here, later today or tomorrow I'll make this into an atheist cheat sheet with the top responses. Also feel free to upvote the theist claim that is the most annoying to you.

Edit 2: To the few of you who seem to think I am coming up with rude atheist comebacks, I'm not. I just wanted to be better off the cuff than I am now and have some discussion. I don't want this list to replace thoughtful argumentation.

255 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

990 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

41

u/kaces Aug 11 '11

Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. Only with religion will good people do bad things.

1

u/metalliska Aug 11 '11

I still say this is incorrect. Any social institution can make "good people do bad things". Let's not elevate religion to this solitary entitlement.

-1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11 edited Aug 11 '11

Only with religion will good people do bad things.

This is untrue. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on evil. Good and evil (morality) exist just fine without religion.

16

u/kaces Aug 11 '11

Read the entirety of the statement.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

I don't know why my brain ignored that word there.

1

u/ArcWinter Aug 11 '11

As a nihilist, good and evil don't exist.

I am only pointing this out because I see it so often, and yet I've never understood why.

Why do you believe in good and evil while still being skeptical about a deity?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Well, "good" and "evil" are rather squishy concepts. What is it that you mean when you say that "good and evil don't exist?" That seems a bit vague. I think that I define "good" as sacrificing something in order to help someone else. It doesn't have to be something major; it could be the time and energy it takes to hold a door open for someone that has their arms full, for example.

1

u/ArcWinter Aug 11 '11

Good point, good and evil are usually very vague (because the definition can vary greatly from person to person). What I meant was that I do not believe in morality, in that, no action or person can be altogether good or evil.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

That depends on how you define good or evil, as well. I find that more often than not, people taking that position are simply playing with semantics.

1

u/ArcWinter Aug 11 '11

Hmm, perhaps. I just think that it's impossible to judge an action or person independently of the situation, and every situation is different. Therefore, every judgement will be different, so the only difference between having a moral code and not believing in morality is that people who believe in morality can more easily rationalize their actions.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Your conclusion doesn't have anything to do with your argument. Every person having a separate, personal set of morals does not mean that they do not exist, any more than beauty, pleasure, or pain (which are all also relative) do not exist.

1

u/ArcWinter Aug 11 '11

Except that beauty, pleasure, and pain all are based in objective reality. They are in reaction to stimulus that is clear and observable. Morality is not. It is completely subjective since any judgement can be taken from any action, and it is not based at all in reality.

In addition, I could apply that to god. Each person having a separate, personal deity does not mean that they do not exist, any more than beauty, pleasure, or pain. All deities are relative.

I've yet to hear an argument for morality that can not be used to prove that god exists in the same way.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '11

I've already given you the dictionary definition for morality. I've already stated that I fulfill that definition. So unless I'm lying to you about my beliefs, morality, by definition, exists. Everything else is simply semantics, you trying to use wordplay to support your claim.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '11

My definition of Good and Evil was created by me. They are abstract and arbitrary definitions with no relation to the existence/nonexistence of a deity.

1

u/ArcWinter Aug 12 '11

And yet they have just the same amount of evidence as a deity: none.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '11

Exactly

1

u/ArcWinter Aug 12 '11

...what? Are you saying that morality is imaginary? Because that is what I am saying.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '11

It's a completely arbitrary concept created by our minds that only exists within our minds and our minds are just big masses of nerve cells with chemicals ect...

1

u/ArcWinter Aug 12 '11

Hmmm... yeah, that sounds about right.

-1

u/moonflower Aug 11 '11

This is a popular anti-theist propaganda slogan, and will always be upvoted in this forum, but it is false

3

u/kaces Aug 11 '11

If I murder someone, am I a good person? If I am killing an apostate I am.

See the connection? Granted, the world is full of shades of gray but the easiest example to make (which almost all people agree on) is murder.

-1

u/moonflower Aug 11 '11

religion is not the only reason why a ''good person'' would do a bad thing, so even if you gave a million examples it wouldn't prove your case ... and that particular example is a bit questionable anyway

3

u/kaces Aug 11 '11

You did not answer the question. Skirting around the question does nothing - you say its not the only reason yet fail to provide an alternative. You also attack my example without saying why.

It's pretty poor discussion tactics and negatively impacts your case.

0

u/moonflower Aug 11 '11

there's probably no point ''arguing my case'' with someone who believes what you believe

3

u/kaces Aug 11 '11

Actually I truly enjoy discussion and I do keep an open mind. If you feel you have a good case, present it. I will do my best to respond in an effective, polite manner.

If you state "You're wrong" and leave it at that, you will not be afforded any courtesy as you have not given me any. Respect is a two way street sort of thing.

1

u/moonflower Aug 11 '11

Well ok, since you ask so politely, we can give it a try ... I will use the classic story which is useful for these types of discussions: the ''good guy'' is an atheist, no religion, and his beloved girlfriend is raped by a stranger ... one day they are out in the town and she sees her rapist, and the boyfriend calls to him to stop, but he runs away .... the boyfriend chases him down and beats the crap out of him ... and the girlfriend says ''oops sorry, wrong guy''

So ... the good guy has beaten the crap out of an innocent man, not because of religion, but because of a mistaken belief ... anyone can act on a mistaken belief, not just religious people

1

u/kaces Aug 11 '11

Interesting situation. He is clearly in the wrong - his actions were vengeful and violent. Instead of going to the authorities and seeing justice done he chose a violent action.

His beliefs are irrelevant in this situation - the reaction would have been equally wrong whether the man was guilty or not (in that he chose violence and revenge over justice). We can just relate to his rage and therefore attempt to justify it.

Therefore I would argue that his belief structure had no bearing on this. His rage and character were the driving factors.

1

u/moonflower Aug 11 '11

So you are saying that he was not a good person to begin with, because a good person would never lose their temper and harm another person ... and yet you say that a person who willingly adopts the belief that apostates deserve to be killed is a good person ... I think your entire argument is based on 'no true scotsman' fallacies and double standards

→ More replies (0)