Evil Atheism.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point of this wasn't to rescue their whole argument, it was to give them an escape hatch when they are inevitably asked if they would be raping their own mother if they didn't have God. The answer should be: Thats exactly what I'm afraid of!

[/ QUOTE ]

Your position seems to be shifting slightly. Now you're saying that they should reply with "Thats exactly what I'm afraid of!" (implying that they think they very well might rape and kill their mother) while before it was "I don't know what I'd do if God wasn't there" (which doesn't imply anything other than confusion).

What I'm arguing is that this counter undermines their original position: that atheists are more likely to rape and kill their mother. If they argue that they don't know what they might do without their god then they can't claim to know what I might do without their god. And if that is so, they can't argue that atheists are more likely to rape and kill their mother.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think his hatch is still viable. It amounts to "I dont know what will happen if I dont believe in God, but I know I wont rape and kill if I do believe. Therefore atheists might be as good as theists, but could be worse."

[foal]

right, what I meant by indiscriminately was not discriminating between good and evil.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I think his hatch is still viable. It amounts to "I dont know what will happen if I dont believe in God, but I know I wont rape and kill if I do believe. Therefore atheists might be as good as theists, but could be worse."

[/ QUOTE ]

But it totally weakens his original argument by downgrading atheist evil to a theoretical possibility that could well be just as low as the theist's (or even lower if we acknowledge that not all theists have the same beliefs).

As soon as he says "I don't know" he admits that his original argument was built on a lie: that he knows how atheists make moral/ethical decisions.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
right, what I meant by indiscriminately was not discriminating between good and evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

But as soon as they admit that they're only talking about their concept of good and evil they open themselves up to the argument that everyone who doesn't proscribe to their branch of theism acts indiscriminately. And I don't think most of these guys want to argue that.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think his hatch is still viable. It amounts to "I dont know what will happen if I dont believe in God, but I know I wont rape and kill if I do believe. Therefore atheists might be as good as theists, but could be worse."

[/ QUOTE ]

But it totally weakens his original argument by downgrading atheist evil to a theoretical possibility that could well be just as low as the theist's (or even lower if we acknowledge that not all theists have the same beliefs).

[/ QUOTE ]
Remembering he is proposing a dodge for a theist convinced they are following an absolute morality, they will not be concerned with competing views as to what is evil.

[ QUOTE ]
As soon as he says "I don't know" he admits that his original argument was built on a lie: that he knows how atheists make moral/ethical decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it was carelessly worded perhaps, nonetheless it is a valid argument that if it's true that theists will not commit evil acts and we dont know what atheists will do - then we should advocate theism on moral grounds since atheism can only be worse (or morally equivalent in a best case scenario).

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
right, what I meant by indiscriminately was not discriminating between good and evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

But as soon as they admit that they're only talking about their concept of good and evil they open themselves up to the argument that everyone who doesn't proscribe to their branch of theism acts indiscriminately. And I don't think most of these guys want to argue that.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a good point.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Remembering he is proposing a dodge for a theist convinced they are following an absolute morality, they will not be concerned with competing views as to what is evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if he's intellectually honest then he should be concerned that his take on absolute morality could be wrong, or at least a bit off.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it was carelessly worded perhaps, nonetheless it is a valid argument that if it's true that theists will not commit evil acts and we dont know what atheists will do - then we should advocate theism on moral grounds since atheism can only be worse (or morally equivalent in a best case scenario).

[/ QUOTE ]

But the "best case scenario" could well be virtually 100% certain, or as close to the "true" absolute morality as any competing theism (including the arguing theists own). The point being that he admits that he has no idea one way or the other. It all depends on a logic along the following lines:

1) I'm morally perfect
2) I don't know you
3) Therefore, you're at best my moral equal
4) My fellow theists are also morally perfect
5) therefore, we're all probably morally superior to you

The problem, of course, is that almost no one will say (1) or (4) publicly so what they end up saying is more like:

1) My god is morally perfect
2) I try to follow his moral rules, but sometimes fail
3) I don't know what moral rules you try to follow
4) you don't believe in my god
5) therefore your moral rules are probably different from those of my god
6) I don't know how close your rules are to my god's ***
7) It seems like your more likely to make moral mistakes

8) Therefore, we theists are probably all morally superior to you

*** (6) follows from their admitting that they don't know whether or not they'd rape and kill their mother without their god

Mind you, they don't say it all at once because it would look really stupid.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The point being that he admits that he has no idea one way or the other. It all depends on a logic along the following lines:

1) I'm morally perfect
2) I don't know you
3) Therefore, you're at best my moral equal
4) My fellow theists are also morally perfect
5) therefore, we're all probably morally superior to you

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that this is in essence the argument and it's valid - at least if 5) is reworded along the lines of "we are all your moral equals or better".

Obviously, I think 1) and 4) are open to challenge but that doesnt affect the validity of the argument, merely its relevance. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Personally, the dodge I'd recommend to them is that their guide to absolute morality includes worshipping God. Therefore an atheist is immoral by definition. They dont need to get caught up in the messy "Would you murder and rape if you didnt believe in God or not?" since "Would you worship God if you didnt believe in him?" is much easier to answer.

[Alex-db]

Its this type of discusion that cause people to doubt the IQs of theists. The question should never be:

Does (a God's) morality exist or does morality not exist?

Its:

Did a God create the human concept of morality, or did it occur as the result of something else?

[MidGe]

Alex-db,

You are absolutely right, but the notion/idea goes way beyond that even. Evil does not exists with an atheists domain, it cannot, it is something that is relevant only to theists!

DUCY? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]