1. Response to the Moral argument
Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
P1 fails because there are numerous alternatives that can act as a grounds for objective moral values and duties by theist own definition, which is something grounded in a metaphysical theory of everything. For example, instead of being grounded in theism objective morality may be grounded in deism, pantheism, naturalistic pantheism (i.e. atheism), pandeism, acosmism, panpsychism, transtheism, henotheism, polytheism, pastafarianism, or an evil god, just to name a few.
Atheists/scientists can assert an objective basis for morality grounded in Naturalistic Pantheism as a super law of nature or product of a super law, simply one we have not yet discovered. Therefore, like theism, science is also capable of asserting explanations for any apparent objective phenomena such as an objective basis for: morality, purpose, meaning, value, consciousness, freewill, intelligibility, rationality, math, logic, origin of the universe, etc…
2. Response to the Historicity of the bible
If I told you I saw a real living breathing dog, then you should believe me.
However, if I told you I saw a real living breathing unicorn, you should not believe me.
The difference between these two claims is that dogs have an implicit empirical basis, whereas unicorns do not. Meaning for dog there exists many things about them that we can verify in the present such as their taxonomy, bones, genetic makeup, chemical composition, what they are allergic to, etc..; that I simply haven’t mentioned in the argument, i.e. implicit.
Because I have made an empirical claim about the world, it requires empirical evidence that we can verify in the present. The conceptual evidence of my testimony is insufficient to justify the claim unicorns exist because we cannot verify conceptual evidence in the present and you would have to accept something in my memory/imagination is an accurate representation of reality. Examples of conceptual evidence are testimony modern or historical, personal experience, intuition, anecdote, etc.
Therefore, to justify the empirical claim unicorns exist would require empirical evidence of unicorns, where the conceptual evidence of my testimony is only sufficient to justify belief is was a delusion, misinterpretation, imagination, fabrication, hallucination, etc… all conceptual conclusions about my mind.
Historical claims work the same way, if the claims already have an implicit empirical basis then they are, prima facie, reasonable to accept. If they do not have an implicit empirical basis than an explicit basis must be provided before they are reasonable to accept.
Therefore, miracles, magic, mythical creatures, the supernatural, paranormal, aliens, etc… would all need an explicit empirical basis before they were reasonable to accept based on historical testimony/conceptual evidence. However, it is reasonable to believe such claims to be delusions, misconceptions, invention, confabulation, or imagination as those are conceptual conclusions and therefore only require conceptual evidence such as historical testimony.
This principle can be summarized as:
Conceptual claims require conceptual evidence; empirical claims require empirical evidence.
These are my original arguments, which I hope to use to find opportunities to do public debates with theists; check out my YouTube channel for more:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHXrvsK33VUEcpa4Ar0c0Sg
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
welcome Thop...i mean Tjump..
feel free to brows through the previous topics...you'll find more of this kind here...
peace out bruh....
The post makes little to no sense on its face. "What are Atheist Arguments." I guess I am going to find out.
1. This is a theist argument. Are you perhaps going to discuss atheist responses to theist arguments??
Isn't primes one better stated in a positive. "If god exists so objective moral values exist." Frankly I don't see any connection here. I have never seen or heard of an objective moral value. And especially, I have never heard or seen one that God himself has not violated. So, just how objective is objective?
YEA.... as I thought you are going to go about and give atheist responses to Christian arguments. As far as I am concerned you are preaching to the choir. Still, there are others who will find the thread useful if they are unfamiliar with some of the responses to Christian arguments. cheers!
If you understand how english works when you have two sequential nouns the first "Atheist...", is who owns/uses it and the second "...Arguments" is what they own/use... so "Atheist arguments" means arguments that atheists use. If you need further help with english please try google.
"1. Response to the Moral argument" <--- i wonder why i typed this in the OP before the argument? its a mystery...
those 'premises' (not primes) are copied form Reasonable faith website, feel free to email them if you think you can improve their argument.
In the OP I also typed: "...theist own definition [of objective morality], which is something grounded in a metaphysical theory of everything.".. therefore i'm using THEIR definition, regardless of if it is correct. This is not an argument for an objective morality, it an argument that theists definition allows for many alternative.
IMHO, atheists do not require arguments. It is theists who make a positive statement about the existence of a god or gods. Therefore the burden of proof lies with the theists, and they are the ones who must make arguments. The atheist simply doesn't believe in a god or gods, but to be rational, we need to consider the theists' arguments. Further, we need to rebut, refute or show how the theistic arguments do not work. If we ignore or cannot demolish the theist' arguments, then the theists arguments stand.
Of course, if there was convincing evidence for, or any proof of, the existence of any god or gods, no arguments would be needed - we would already KNOW the truth of, or be convinced of, the existence of the god or gods that are so proven or evidenced.
Your post, is a case of rebutting two theistic arguments ~ that morality requires "God" and that the Bible is an historically accurate and reliable document. I agree with the rebuttals which you make.
Mutorc
Everything you said is true, however if you want to convince theists you need to find a compelling way to show them that their arguments don't work.... that is the point of my arguments.
Good luck with that. I know that quite a few theists say that they will reject reason, logic and arguments, simply on the basis that it disconfirms what they think the Bible says. In other words, they will continue to believe, NO MATTER what anyone says. For instance, the Bible says that the unbeliever is a fool.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who Does The Bible Call A Fool?
What is a Fool?
One of the best known verses about a fool in the Bible is from Psalm 14:1 which says “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.”
Read more: https://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/who-does-the-bible-call-a-fool/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the Bible declares that there are no atheists . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the Bible Really Teach That There Are No True Atheists?
By Dr. Paul M. Elliott
Every Human Being Knows God
Sadly, the God-denying state of mind is also like that. The Apostle Paul develops this thought in Romans chapter 1, beginning at verse 18:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools...
They suppress the truth of God's existence and attributes (verse 18).
http://www.teachingtheword.org/apps/articles/?articleid=59293&blogid=5433
(1 Samuel 25: verses)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So simply arguing against the existence of "God", according to these theist, (and the Bible - which is supposedly "God's" word), makes you a fool, and you are simply a believer, denying the truth, which is the opposite of what you might be arguing.
TJump, you say: "that is the point of my arguments". I'm offering semantics, but what you present are actually COUNTER arguments, as they should be.
Mutorc.
No one is convincing a theist of anything. Atheists are questioning and pointing out the logical fallacy of the "ARGUMENT" This is not an "argument in and of itself. If you want an atheist argument against the existence of God, try "THE PROBLEM OF EVIL." At the same time, notice that it isn't actually an argument but an inquiry that is often used as an argument. It really depends on what is being asserted. A response to an argument is not an argument when it merely seeks clarification, points out fallacies, or rejects a faulty premise.
Cognostic,
I have convinced many theists of many things, maybe the problem is with you.
Arguing, that someone's argument is wrong... is itself argument. Arguments are the defending of a proposition and, "your argument is wrong" is a proposition. For help with basic philosophy try google.
Again you seem to be under some misapprehension about how english works. 'Atheist arguments' does not mean the same things as 'arguments for atheism'... notice the second has a preposition which changes the meaning. For help with basic english try google.
i have not found any value in anything you have said thus far.
FYI: In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.[1][2] The general form of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (variously propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion.[3][4][5] The structure of some arguments can also be set out in a formal language, and formally defined "arguments" can be made independently of natural language arguments, as in math, logic, and computer science."
A response to an argument is NONE OF THESE.
Deductive arguments
A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises. Based on the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily (with certainty). For example, given premises that A=B and B=C, then the conclusion follows necessarily that A=C. Deductive arguments are sometimes referred to as "truth-preserving" arguments.
Inductive arguments
An inductive argument, on the other hand, asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported to some degree of probability by the premises. For example, given that the U.S. military budget is the largest in the world (premise=true), then it is probable that it will remain so for the next 10 years (conclusion=true). Arguments that involve predictions are inductive, as the future is uncertain.
I think this is an Argumentum ad dictionarium issue. We obviously are not using the word "Argument" in the same way.
Cognostic, read the very first line of your quote...
"In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion."
"your argument is wrong" <--- this is a conclusion...
your argument has fallacy x (premise); therefore, your argument is wrong. (conclusion) <--- this is an argument
How many more ways do i need to demonstrate your comments are nonsense? What you're saying isn't even substantive, your posts are just pedantic misuses of language which have nothing to do with anything i said or any argument.
Please go away.
@TJump Re: to Cog - "Please go away."
Hey there, TJump. Welcome to the AR. So, listen, for what it's worth, I feel I must step in here for a moment and perhaps give you a quick heads-up. You are new here, so I realize you have not had much chance of getting acquainted with everybody yet. Therefore, it can sometimes be easy to mistake individuals for something they are not. In this particular case, Cognostic happens to be a well-respected regular on this site, and one of several skilled debaters. And while I understand it can be instinctive and reflex sometimes to immediately jump into "defense mode" during on-line debates, I would suggest you step back and maybe take a breather before cutting loose with arrogant and dismissive attitudes. Many good folks on here. Cog is one of them. Take a little time to get to know the place before tossing around flippant dismissals. Just a suggestion....
Tin-man, respect is earned not given, and none of the comments he made was worthy of my respect.
I do not presume to know what anyone is or is not nor do i care, i only care about the quality of the arguments they make.
I was dismissive of his comments because they were not substantive and had nothing to do with my argument whatsoever... they were just pedantic misunderstandings of english.
"to immediately jump"
its his last name T-man....hehe..(Tjump)
just saying.....alright...i'll sit back and enjoy this....
can i ask you something T-hop..i mean T-jump..sorry...
you know a lot of "theists" signs up and pretend to be atheist...
are you one of them?....don't get me wrong ok? we're cool...
@ Tin-Man: Oh to hell with that! Cog is a dweeb and everyone knows it. I am in the process of reviewing and formulating a response.
@Cog Re: "...Cog is a dweeb and everyone knows it."
Sure. Everyone on HERE knows it. But NOT the new guy. Duh! This is your chance to crawl out of dweebism and make a respectable name for yourself, man. Don't pass it up. Opportunities like this do not come along very often. Go for it! I have faith in you!
Don't get your hopes up - He made a good point independent of his shitty attitude. You don't think (I of all people) have a problem with shitty attitudes do you? Ha ha ha ha ha ....... It's the internet..... Never take anything seriously...... Not even threats of suicide...... (Referencing our mutual acquaintance of the past few days.)
@Cog
Re: "Never take anything seriously...... Not even threats of suicide...... (Referencing our mutual acquaintance of the past few days.)"
Yeah...well...I still want to slap our mutual acquaintance for putting that on you. Weasel words, that. Nasty. Wormlike. Loathsome spotted reptile stuff. Grrr!
TJump,
Welcome aboard the contentious, AtheistRepublic debate forum!
I think you're working way too hard here! Mostly, your opponents will be religious morons who are clueless about adult reasoning. Anyway, I'd just note that "premise 1" is nothing more than a bald-faced opinion. Why should anyone believe it? Going a bit deeper, the idea that God's decree sets the standard for morality (presumably yielding an unimpeachable set of rules) leads to the ultimate in relative morality! God can make up any rules he wants, thus making the whole concept of morality (and right and wrong) meaningless to us. We would have no reason to call God "good." This contradiction means that God cannot be the standard, which implies that any standards for morality must exist outside of God.
With regards to biblical "history" (read miracles) David Hume said it well. Which is more believable, that a miracle occurred and that the laws of nature (the best tested evidence known to humanity) have failed or than humans have erred in such a claim? The case for a miracle has no known track record, no tested theoretical mechanisms, and nothing remotely close to original, verified testimony if taken from the Bible.
The case for human error has a long and robust track record. We need only note that every religion claims its own miracles, and among conflicting religions only one can be right--if that. Psychologists have written books documenting how individuals (and mobs) can be subject to the most shocking delusions. And, then, we have the matter of how easily stories evolve in the telling. Thus, when we read of miracles in the Bible, we should ask ourselves whether it is easier (more credible) to go with the story or with modern science. The choice should be a no-brainer! Hence, on the basis of pure reason, we are justified in not taking these stories seriously.
Well, there! I've gone and done it, working way too hard myself!
Greensnake, yes those are all good arguments but they don't make sense too theists who will say gods commands are determined by his nature or hume unfairly excludes miracles, these responses dont really work but theist think they do.
My arguments are coming to the same conclusion but using the theist own worldview/definitions to do it, which is why i think my argument may be more effective than Euthyphro or Hume.
TJump,
It's good to have a variety of ammo, so your work is welcome. But, don't forget that theists are all over the spectrum. Different approaches may work best for different theists.
I can see you are arguing. I still do not get where you come up with the idea that you have posed an argument. "You are wrong." would assert your conclusion in the premise and that is begging the question.
I see the Christian has put forth a formal argument for the existence of god based on moral values.
You are wrong because....1,2,3, Therefore you are wrong. How is this an actual "Argument?"
On top of that, how is it an 'Atheist" argument. All you are doing is pointing out the fallacy of the logic being used. We can all agree that P1 is in error. Hell, I don't even know what an objective moral value is. I have never seen one and there are certainly none in the Bible. I have never heard God mention one.
I'm checking with some colleges more adept in the field of logic than I. I just don't get how you are saying that you are making an Argument and not just arguing.
@ For example, instead of being grounded in THEISM objective morality may be grounded in deism, pantheism, naturalistic pantheism (i.e. atheism), pandeism, acosmism, panpsychism, transtheism, henotheism, polytheism, pastafarianism, or an evil god, just to name a few.
THEISM
Classical Deism is the belief that one God exists and created the world, but that the Creator does/do not alter the original plan for the universe, but presides over it in the form of Providence; however, some classical Deists did believe in divine intervention. (A subcategory of theism)
Pantheism: Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it. (A subcategory of theism)
Acosmism, in contrast to pantheism, denies the reality of the universe, seeing it as ultimately illusory, (the prefix "a-" in Greek meaning negation; like "un-" in English), and only the infinite unmanifest Absolute as real.[1] Conceptual versions of Acosmism are found in eastern and western philosophies. Brahma in Hinduism and
Parmenides, Plato, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and British and American idealists, such as F.H. Bradley.[16][17] The word acosmism is often traced to Hegel who used it in his discussion of the philosophy of religion, in particular his understanding of pantheism and refutation of the charge that Spinoza was an atheist.[18][19][20] Hegel explains that for Spinoza it is the infinite 'substance' which is real, while the finite world doesn't exist. "But the accusers of Spinozism are unable to liberate themselves from the finite; hence they declare for Spinozism everything is God,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acosmism#cite_note-5
Panpsychism is the view that mentality is fundamental and ubiquitous in the natural world. The view has a long and venerable history in philosophical traditions of both East and West, and has recently enjoyed a revival in analytic philosophy. For its proponents panpsychism offers an attractive middle way between physicalism on the one hand and dualism on the other. The worry with dualism—the view that mind and matter are fundamentally different kinds of thing—is that it leaves us with a radically disunified picture of nature, and the deep difficulty of understanding how mind and brain interact. (May or may not be a subset of Theism - I'll give you this one.)
The rest are obviously subsets of theism as it indicates that in their name. What you offered were not alternatives to theism but subsets of theism. I submit that Dillahaunty's and Sam Harris's ATHEISTIC MORALITY based on "Well being." is a much better assertion here.
With that said - I have not called you an idiot. I have not told you to GO AWAY. If you get butt hurt over a few questions and requests for clarification - that's your problem.
I do not see debunking any Religious claim as an "Atheist Argument." Atheism is the position of not believing the claims of theists. Theist claims are fraught with error, fallacy, and absurd assumptions. "You are wrong" is certainly arguing, but not an Argument.
Relax your butt cheeks. I have also contacted a few people I know who are really good at this stuff. I may yet concede the point. Nothing you have said has yet convinced me. Anyone else care to weigh in here?
@Cog Re: "Anyone else care to weigh in here?"
I would love to chime in a bit with something useful, but I'm afraid most of that is above my pay-grade. While I can follow it and fairly well understand it, I ain't got much to contribute to it. I'm just the court jester around here. Although, I must admit that the OP somehow seems to make things a bit more complicated than they really need to be. Just an observation.... *walks away while juggling bowling pins*....
Strategies for Arguing against a Philosophical View http://www.jennifermmorton.com/arguing.pdf
NOTE: This is different that creating an argument. The Argument is created, a formal proposition. When you argue against it you are not creating an Atheist Argument. Again: That might be something like the problem of evil.
The Moral Argument
Premise 1: If A, then B
Premise 2: A
Conclusion: B
You can Question the truth of the premise - (this is not an argument. ) You did this well.
Questioning the validity of the argument: (This is what you did. You did not create an alternative argument.) You showed the validity of the argument to be fallacious. (No problem here.)
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID:
Finding an alternatives: Sometimes arguments depend on their being two alternatives. The philosopher
argues that either A or B must be true and then argues for something that follows from either of them. A
good way to respond to this argument is to find an alternative that the philosopher had not considered and
show how it would defeat his argument.
All I have asserted at any point is that you have not posed an Atheist Argument. I'm not even sure what that would be unless we are speaking of anti-theism. What you did is demonstrate the fallacy and render an argument ineffective.
You are arguing and not formulating an Argument. I might call the thread "Debunking Theist Claims."
Cognostic, omg..... go away with your nonsense.
counter argument
an argument or set of reasons put forward to oppose an idea or theory developed in another argument.
Saying someone else argument is flawed and giving ANY REASON..... IS an argument.
This is accepted by all philosopher everywhere, if you dont understand this you are the problem stop wasting my time.
@Tin Man
It's above my pay grade, too.
I read the OP and thought " But I don't accept objective moral values exist". Moral codes are subjective- reached by consensus- that's why they vary so much. I've never seen anyone put up an objective moral in a debate that someone else couldn't tear down. I read the thread and it didn't change my opinion. I agree with the OP that morality isn't grounded in this or that god belief- clearly, it can't be, there's that diversity issue again- but that doesn't make morality objective, either.
On the historicity of Jesus, my response would be it tells us nothing about the third party claims made for him at all. Augustus Caesar was the son of a god, too. Julius Caesar WAS a god, so were the pharaohs.
Do you want some of my popcorn, Tin Man?
@Sushi
Oooo...Popcorn! Thanks....*grabbing handful*....Nom-nom-nom.... Here, I have some pretzels and soda if you want some....*passing over shopping bag*.... Hey, Q, you in?...*looking around*....Hey, where's Old Man?
"passing over shopping bag"
*toilet flush sound*, *shutting door*.......
oohhh....i think i'll pass....*stomach crumble sound*...i shouldn't have eaten that pizza you left on the table t-man..ooohhhh...how long was that pizza there?....*passing back the shopping bag to sushi*....how can i enjoy the show with this upset stomach??....
so we have another "john the professor breezy" wanna be .....lets see how long will this last.....
*sniff..sniff* do you smell that?..oh its me...be right back..
It is the title of the OP that throws me off.
I think that's where I lost it too, I think that is all I said,
I have listened to couple of his videos. I still do not know what point he is trying to make.
Besides, the title: "Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before" is not very accurate. These supposed "best arguments never heard" I have already heard and have already used. Some for many decades now.
Thus, all I can ask is where are these "Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before"?
Sorry, TJump, I am just being honest. Additionally, you look to be at least 15 or more years younger than I am. Maybe? Thus, I have already heard, and thought of, anything you can still think of. It is the "age and treachery shall always overcome youth and inexperience" syndrome.
rmfr
Pages