JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

OffTopic

Surf a Flood of random discussion.
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.

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

View Entire Topic
  • [quote]Theodicy (the problem of evil) is an extremely invalid argument from the atheistic Worldview. To argue against evil, you must assume an objective good[/quote] False on both counts. 1. What exactly is an atheistic world view? An atheist is a person who does not believe in god(s). The way they view the world can vastly differ depending on many factors. Their stance on moral objectivity is not inherently tied to their belief in a supreme being. For example: a person can not believe in god, but still believe that as an objective feature of the world, killing is morally wrong (and evil) based off of utilitarian principles. The world is a better place (as defined by the majority of humans - as in a democracy - rather than a single godly being - as in a dictatorship (sic)). Here though, objectivity is reduced down in a way that can be problematic. Some of my friends argue semantics here, but it still equates to objectivity (though only in a tangible sense). 2. You can also use the concepts of good and evil under a subjective moral view. These views tend to be more incline with social contractarianism, but essentially we all agree to moral dos and don'ts (in a similar manner as to rule/law agreement) and just hold those standards to a higher regard. From the get go, your argument is flawed, as it commits the straw man fallacy. You are defining the position in a certain way (by assuming) that allows you to easily dismantle and disprove it based on literary definitions.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

    4 Replies
    You are not allowed to view this content.
    ;
    preload icon
    preload icon
    preload icon