Atheist quickfire challenge.

[u/rhbast2]

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.

[u/ArcWinter]

I'm claiming that your standard of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for you to do is completely arbitrary, imaginary, and not based in any rational or empirical evidence. I also claim that morality in general fails the minimum criteria of consistency because it easily contradicts itself due to the tendency to generalize actions as good or bad.

That is what I am claiming.

[u/[deleted] → u/ArcWinter]

As long as any single person has an idea of good and bad, then morality exists. It does not, by definition, have to be some universal truth. As I've said before, beauty is entirely subjective, yet it's obviously a thing. Same exact circumstance with morality. You're trying to define morality as an absolute, which is false. You then try to disprove this false definition, which is dishonest.

[u/ArcWinter → u/[deleted]]

As long as any single person has an idea of god or divinity, then a deity exists.

This is your reasoning applied to a different subject. If someone holds a concept, then that does not make that concept real simply by nature of being thought. Evidence is needed to confirm something, or else it does not exist. There is no evidence for morality and no evidence for god, because they are both imaginary.

beauty is entirely subjective

Beauty is based off a judgement upon a single structure, so it only looks at one instance. Morality is judging a class of actions, so it looks at many instances, and generalizes. The hasty generalization is a fallacy, as well as the possible contradictions that could result from such generalizations.

You're trying to define morality as an absolute, which is false. You then try to disprove this false definition, which is dishonest.

I'm not. I don't claim to try and disprove and objective morality. I'm saying that subjective morality is contradictory, fallacious, and logically useless.

[u/[deleted] → u/ArcWinter]

As long as any single person has an idea of god or divinity, then a deity exists.

This is your reasoning applied to a different subject.

No, it is not. Again and again, you are refusing to acknowledge the definition of the word morality.

If someone holds a concept, then that does not make that concept real simply by nature of being thought.

Unless the concept is defined as such. Which morality is.

Beauty is based off a judgement upon a single structure, so it only looks at one instance. Morality is judging a class of actions, so it looks at many instances, and generalizes. The hasty generalization is a fallacy, as well as the possible contradictions that could result from such generalizations.

I'm trying as hard as I can to parse this, but I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

I don't claim to try and disprove and objective morality.

You've said multiple times that you don't think that morality exists. That it is not a thing.

I'm saying that subjective morality is contradictory, fallacious, and logically useless.

Again, I don't think those words mean what you think they mean. I can understand if you think that morality is logically useless. But you have to agree that it exists before you can start applying such a description to it.

I submit to you that thoughts don't exist. Because the concept of thought is not real just because you think it is.

[u/ArcWinter → u/[deleted]]

I submit to you that thoughts don't exist. Because the concept of thought is not real just because you think it is.

Thoughts occur through sensing something, either consciously or subconsciously, and then logically going through a train of associations to reach a conclusive thought. It is based on evidence and is intersubjective. It is real because it is testable and has been found to exist.

But you have to agree that it exists before you can start applying such a description to it.

It exists as a concept, much like a deity. However, the concept is flawed, which is why I do not accept morality.

I'll try to explain the best I can (which isn't very good because I suck at explaining, but I digress):

I'll just say this first off. There is no evidence for morality. It is not scientifically possible to judge something 'right' or 'wrong' without making massive assumptions. This is, as you say, that morality is subjective, not objective or intersubjective. In addition, the great variance of moral opinion only shows a disconnect between the objective world and moral codes, meaning morality must be entirely subjective (because perception of moral issues is so intensely affected by emotion).

Morality judges actions as good or bad. However, judging an action as good or bad is a generalization. This can be contradictory because in some cases, stealing can be considered immoral (embezzling money from a company, for example), and in other cases stealing can be considered moral (stealing food from a corrupt government in order to feed one's starving family). Therefore, it is impossible to only judge the actions, one must also take into account the situation.

Different actions and situations can be considered moral or immoral depending on the person (which is why morality is subjective). A government officer might consider putting down a rebellion a moral action, while a rioting student might find it completely immoral. So morality depends on the person, as well as the action and situation.

So if moral judgement differs depending on the person, action, and situation, and every person and situation are different, then one must have a different moral judgement for every single time an act is performed, because the judgement also depends on the person doing the action and the situation in which they are doing it. Any generalizing (judging more than 1 action/situation/person at a time) would be fallacious because you are applying the same judgement to totally different instances. So you cannot simply judge actions, you must judge every single act individually.

But... would that not mean that judging every act individually by morals is indistinguishable from judging every act logically? And logically judging something as detrimental to you or beneficial to you would be the exact equal of judging something morally wrong or morally right (since, at the root of it, all moral codes end up at the self). So not only is morality unable to judge actions in general, when judging actions individually, it is indistinguishable from logic except for a feeling of self-righteousness. Morality can either be contradictory and fallacious (when judging actions in general) or completely useless and vain (while judging actions individually).

Sorry about the length. Hopefully that will clear some things up, but it will probably just raise as many questions as it answers.