Strangest theist argument

gobaskof
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Strangest theist argument

Some theist (I'm pretty sure they are Christian) came up with the whole We can have morals without god.

And I pointed out the Golden rule, do to others as you would have them do to you.

But this guy thinks that that is a circular argument!

Something about you have to have already decided the thing is wrong before you can choose that you don't want people to do it to you.

So I said:

Quote:
I don't like being hurt
If someone did X it would hurt me
So I don't want people to do X to me
Therefore I will not do X to another person


He thinks this is still a circular argument:
Quote:
There are two problems with your argument. 1) In your first premise, you have not stated why being hurt is bad. 2) Since X is a variable, you can apply ANY action to the premise, because any action can be labeled at good or bad, that's the problem. No matter how you try to reword your arguments, it always brings the argument back to the basis of feeling, which begs the question of "WHY?"


He doesn't know why being hurt is bad?

Anyway here is what I said: (I apologise that this is turning into a "he said, then I said story&quotEye-wink

Quote:
Evolution favors creatures who are better at surviving (this is a fact not an assumption)
Pain is the signal that something is hurting you, if you don't react to pain as a negative you are not going to survive long!
Therefore our brains evolved to find pain bad.
Because of this i don't like people doing things that are painful to me.
Therefore i don't do these things to other people.


I haven't got a reply yet but i am sure he wont accept what i just said! can anyone else think of another way of phrasing it.

Or am I going insane? I'm not wrong am I? Having this debate has defiantly decreased my brain power!

Quote:
I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore. - Charles Darwin


gobaskof
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-19
User is offlineOffline
****We can't have morals

****We can't have morals without god.**** Terrible error on the first line ...


Mordagar
RRS local affiliateSuperfan
Mordagar's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps you should direct

Perhaps you should direct the person in question to this essay. Written by RRS's own deludedgod.

 

There haven't been many responses to it. 

"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The response to 1 is simple.

The response to 1 is simple. You did say why being hurt is bad. You don't like it. #2 is dependant upon #1 to sustain itself, and so his argument collapses.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: The response

Vastet wrote:
The response to 1 is simple. You did say why being hurt is bad. You don't like it. #2 is dependant upon #1 to sustain itself, and so his argument collapses.

Yes.  I would add, to expand this point, that bad is a word we use to label consequences that we don't like or that are inconsistant with whatever it is that we value.  Things are not bad per se, they are 'bad' because of some value we have.  Our being hurt is an example of something we value not happening; that value is not being hurt.

Shaun 

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


gobaskof
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-19
User is offlineOffline
I got a reply back, it was

I got a reply back, it was basicaly a short reply where he said I used the word bad, which therefore apparently makes my whole argument subjective...acording to his deluded brain! I told him that we "eveolve to find pain bad". I think I'm giving this guy too much credit by replying, its just I fell like if I don't reply, he will think that he has won.

Quote:
I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore. - Charles Darwin


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
gobaskof wrote:

gobaskof wrote:
I got a reply back, it was basicaly a short reply where he said I used the word bad, which therefore apparently makes my whole argument subjective...acording to his deluded brain! I told him that we "eveolve to find pain bad". I think I'm giving this guy too much credit by replying, its just I fell like if I don't reply, he will think that he has won.

He's right, it is subjective. 

sa·do·mas·o·chism /ˌseɪdoʊˈmæsəˌkɪzəm, -ˈmæz-, ˌsædoʊ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sey-doh-mas-uh-kiz-uhm, -maz-, sad-oh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun
1.interaction, esp. sexual activity, in which one person enjoys inflicting physical or mental suffering on another person, who derives pleasure from experiencing pain.
2.

gratification, esp. sexual, gained through inflicting or receiving pain; sadism and masochism combined. Abbreviation: S-M, S and M 

Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
gobaskof wrote: I got a

gobaskof wrote:
I got a reply back, it was basicaly a short reply where he said I used the word bad, which therefore apparently makes my whole argument subjective...acording to his deluded brain! I told him that we "eveolve to find pain bad". I think I'm giving this guy too much credit by replying, its just I fell like if I don't reply, he will think that he has won.

He's right, it is very subjective. That's the only type of morality that it possible.

You could point out that even if a god did exist, that doesn't create an obligation to defer to that god's moral authority. After all, the only thing that god would do is damn you to hell, and then you're back to the fact that you don't 'like' 'pain'.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I was having this argument

I was having this argument down pub with a couple of theistic friends, an agnostic friend (who was raised in an evangelical family and has been trying to overcome it) and my atheist best friend (who funnily enough actually disliked The God Delusion). I would explain that a) Morals are there in order for the best consequences to happen to aid our survival in societal terms (society being something that has arisen through evolution anyway). I would then add my utilitarian ethics to this but that conversation is not for here.

Also I think you should try to turn the argument on its head towards where he gets his morality from. Point out that he can't possibly get his morals from the bible, therefore it must come from our own judgement.


gobaskof
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It is not

Quote:
It is not evolutionary theory that stops the man in the alley from bashing your brains and robbing you, it is God in his heart. There is no gene for the human spirit.


Right.... well that showed me!

Quote:
I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore. - Charles Darwin


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
gobaskof wrote: Quote: It

gobaskof wrote:
Quote:
It is not evolutionary theory that stops the man in the alley from bashing your brains and robbing you, it is God in his heart. There is no gene for the human spirit.


Right.... well that showed me!

Ouch!  Are you still reeling from that deathblow of an argument?

I study this board in the hopes of bringing some atheists to Christianity.  Failing that, I can always learn how not to argue with one.  That is a shining example!

A-priority after finishing up my Easter project suite is to learn the atheistic worldview better so that I don't sound THAT FREAKIN' STUPID in a morals debate.  Holy crap! 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Cory T wrote: A-priority

Cory T wrote:

A-priority after finishing up my Easter project suite is to learn the atheistic worldview better so that I don't sound THAT FREAKIN' STUPID in a morals debate. Holy crap!

Cory, you sound surprised that folks try to use arguments like this.

Sadly, it's just not all that unusual. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


PillarMyArse
PillarMyArse's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2007-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley wrote: I

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

I was having this argument down pub with a couple of theistic friends, an agnostic friend (who was raised in an evangelical family and has been trying to overcome it) and my atheist best friend (who funnily enough actually disliked The God Delusion). I would explain that a) Morals are there in order for the best consequences to happen to aid our survival in societal terms (society being something that has arisen through evolution anyway). I would then add my utilitarian ethics to this but that conversation is not for here.

Also I think you should try to turn the argument on its head towards where he gets his morality from. Point out that he can't possibly get his morals from the bible, therefore it must come from our own judgement.

 

But I'm thinking that he can get his morals from the bible.  Because, if the evolutionary theory is right (and I firmly believe that it is) then the bible formalises those morals already present in human behaviour for tens of thousands of years.  Along with other sad departures from human morals which paint an artificially negative picture of human nature.  Like selling your daughter or smashing your boy's head in with a rock for getting a little bit drunk.

So the bible is actually ripping off the evolutionary moral standards which have existed for orders of magnitude longer.  

Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.

Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best


gobaskof
Posts: 35
Joined: 2007-02-19
User is offlineOffline
I agree with "PillarMyArse"

I agree with "PillarMyArse" that the bible is based on the morals that were developed by evolution. But the thing is that morals evolve over time, there is a outstanding difference between the morals of now and just 100 years ago, and the difference between morals now and morals in biblical times is unimaginable.

While I do agree that the bible is based on morals, so people can get morals out of it. The problem I see is that there morals are 2,000-3,000 years out of date! And therefore TERRIBLE by modern day standards!

Quote:
I would almost as soon believe with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells now living on the sea-shore. - Charles Darwin


Cory T
Theist
Cory T's picture
Posts: 130
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Cory, you

Susan wrote:

Cory, you sound surprised that folks try to use arguments like this.

Sadly, it's just not all that unusual.

I guess I'm not that surprised. Working in customer service my entire life has hardened my shell to stupidity.  When I encounter it from people I don't expect or shouldn't see it from, then it surprises me a little bit.  I thought we theists were, on the whole, smarter.  I generally follow apologists, like James White, who takes the time to study the other side throughly before trying to debate them.

It's obvious to me that theists make no attempt to find out where atheists are coming from.  And that saddens me.  And then they try to argue with you as if you accept the same presuppositions that we take for granted.  You don't accept a created world.  You don't accept the Bible as the only infallible source for faith and morals.  You don't believe that what we see as Creation points to any sort of supernatural Creation.  Those who at least allow the possiblity to stay on the table only allow for a deist worldview.

The approach to evangelizing an atheist should start with a challenge to the presuppositions.  But only through studying the atheist worldview (or lacktherof) and actually understanding the presuppositions underlying it (as well as the apologetic typically used to defend it) will someone like me be able to have a meaningful dialogue with anyone here about any sort of posibility of belief in (or re-dedication to) the God I hold so dear and serve with enthusiasm. 

Yet theists continue to embrass themselves and the group as a whole by not studying their opponent's viewpoint prior to entering a debate.  It makes me sad. 

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
CoryT, I appreciate the


CoryT,

I appreciate the fact that you've not lowered yourself to name-calling and tantrums as some xians have done on these forums.  I appreciate that you're trying to understand where we're coming from.  Who knows, maybe you'll begin to see the logic in what we are saying.  Wink

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.