{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by anomaly_rex:
3/1/2017 5:03:45 AM
69
Atheists cannot logically argue against God because of evil
Theodicy (the problem of evil) is an extremely invalid argument from the atheistic Worldview. To argue against evil, you must assume an objective good. Yet, such a source cannot exist under the atheistic presuppositions.
According to atheism, there is no good or evil, only the confines of culture and society that mold and shape our perceptions of good and evil.
However, if there is no right, then there can truly be no wrong. It's all relative to the person's point of view.
Edit: The conversation has been good, friends. I appreciate the respectful way we've composed ourselves tonight/today/whatever time of day it is for you. I'm off to the land of Nod, but keep the comments coming. I'll try to continue replying to as many as I can in the morning. God Bless.
Edit 2: Once again, my need for sleep overcomes my desire to continue the discussions. However, if you fine folks are still lively in the morning, we'll continue the discussion. It's been enjoyable, friends! I appreciate the general air of respect, despite our remarkably obvious differences of opinion. Hurexus out.
-
40 Replies[quote]To argue against evil, you must assume an objective good. Yet, such a source cannot exist under the atheistic presuppositions.[/quote]1. Theism doesn't grant an "objective" good it just shifts the "subjectivity" up to God's decree. This is not morality in any useful definition of the term we've conceived of to help us distinguish right and wrong in accordance with human life. 2. Secular objective morality actually can exist for the same reason good and bad moves in chess can exist. Objectively there are moves in chess in any situation beneficial to a player winning the game, and detrimental to the player winning the game. If the object of the game is to win, then making a move detrimental to your chances of winning is objectively bad. Objectively there are things which are beneficial to human life and detrimental to human life. This is actually even simpler than the chess analogy since it can be reduced to, if the object of human life is human life, then doing something detrimental to human life is objectively bad. Now you can expand this to theism if you'd like and say, "Ah yes well in theism the object is to align your beliefs and actions as closely with God's as possible, and so any action not aligned with God's is objectively bad," however at that point your "moral system" has been completely separated from the quality and flourishing of human life. If your morality has nothing to do with what is right and wrong in interacting with and benefiting living beings then it's essentially not a moral system. And then you can say, "Ah well God's decrees are in alignment with what is most beneficial to life!" which they actually aren't but at that point God is useless since if he's just agreeing with things that are beneficial to life we can already find out those things by living and the moral standard exists without him since it's acknowledging there is are objective parameters independent of God's will which determine morality of an action. Thus God is made moot if this approach is taken even from a theistic standpoint. [quote]According to atheism[/quote]According to atheism, the claim "There is a God," does not have sufficient evidence for belief. That is it. Anything else written after "according to atheism" is some sort of extra add-on that is not at all according to atheism. Atheism is the stance on exactly one issue. So no, to everything that followed this.
