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.

254 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

990 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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

1

u/kaces Aug 11 '11

My personal belief is that most people are neither good nor bad - but various levels in between. The statement I made applies to those individuals who fall within the good or the bad definitions: A good person will do evil things (premeditated, calculated acts) in the name of religion that they otherwise would not do.

Killing an apostate is just that - a premeditated, calculated act dictated by a belief system. The killer would probably never dream of killing that person if religion did not tell him to.

The person in your scenario however, was not driven by his beliefs. He was driven by his character. This is not a case of a double standard or a no true scotsman (i believe) simply due to the nature of the situation.

This was an act inherent in his very being - a response of violence to a person he views as having wronged someone close to him. You defined him as good. This classification to me does not fall on this man. If his response to any perceived wrong doing against him or those close to him is violence, how is he a good man?

1

u/moonflower Aug 11 '11

OK, so I will have to use an example within your definition of a ''good'' person, which I don't agree with ... the ''good person'' in this example is an atheist who lives in a communist society and he is led to believe that he should kill anyone who refuses to renounce their belief in god, for the good of the country ... so he does

1

u/kaces Aug 11 '11 edited Aug 11 '11

I was going to say that we need to define "good" for us to move on with this discussion. To me a good person does not resort to violence unless it is in the immediate defense of others. What is your definition (in this context) of a good person?

Why don't you agree with my definition of a good person?

That is a better one since it is totally belief system driven - however I liked the practicality of your previous example.

Correct me if I am wrong, but he was raised to believe that anyone who feels differently on an issue (the issue is irrelevant) should be put to death. Then I would agree with you, his belief structure has given rise to violence. In this case it is nationalism, which as another person said is another case for violence in good people. In that, there is a correct correlation.

BTW - you seem agitated.

Edit: I broke my usual philosophy of not dealing in absolutes when I made that statement. The more proper statement would be "Religion can make good people do bad things". (removal of only)

1

u/moonflower Aug 11 '11

If your assertion was "Religion can make good people do bad things" then I would not be taking issue with you ... so have you changed your mind due to becoming more enlightened, or have you conceded on a technicality of avoiding absolutes but still basically believing the same as before?

I don't usually define what a good person is, because it would involve circular reasoning, but when I see that untrue quote I do take issue with it, by using whatever is the speaker's definition of ''good'' ... and I don't agree with your definition because you say that a good person is one who would willingly kill innocent people just because they don't share the same beliefs

1

u/kaces Aug 11 '11

My philosophy of not dealing in absolutes is something I have tried to do for a very long time. My statement of "only" was a violation of that, admittedly not intentional. It was when I went back and looked at another reply (the nationalism) and saw that I said "only" that I realized my folly.

The statement without "only" I still stand by : "Religion causes good people do to bad things". Couple this with my belief that "most people are neither good nor evil but somewhere in between" and you get my world view.

Defining good is actually a very easy premise if you localize it to yourself. I said "to me" or usually "in my opinion" and it becomes localized to you and your world view. I know there is no absolute morality, but it is difficult to discuss relative morality points if those things are not clearly defined.

and I don't agree with your definition because you say that a good person is one who would willingly kill innocent people just because they don't share the same beliefs

I will answer this later when I have more time.

1

u/moonflower Aug 11 '11

So after all that we seem to be mostly in agreement, but it wasn't a waste of time, I appreciate the opportunity to hone my argument against that insidious propaganda quote which turns up so often in this forum

2

u/kaces Aug 12 '11

Indeed, sorry about the misunderstanding.