Quote# 110218

Premise 1: If there is no God, then objective moral values do
not exist.
Premise 2: Objective evil exists.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, objective moral values DO exist.
Conclusion 2: Therefore, God exists.

A-theists affirm Premise 1:

“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication,
some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate
meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” A-theist William Provine

“The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an
awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves.
Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

A-theists affirm premise 2 by pointing out how objectively "evil" Christians and the God of the Bible are.

Therefore, by identity with Premise 2, Conclusion 1 is achieved. Therefore, by Modus Tollens of Premise 1 and Conclusion 1, Conclusion 2 is achieved, and God exists. So, when you talk about how objectively "evil" Christians and their God is, you are unwittingly acknowledging His existence.

Happiness means EVERYTHING? Only under an a-theistic view. Certainly, Wilberforce was NOT happy when he was being mocked and laughed at and persecuted for being a "religious extremist" by wanting to end slavery. See the difference? Under a-theism, there really are no grounds for objective moral values and duties. Happiness really IS everything - and anyone who gets in the way of the narcissistic happiness of the a-theist should be trounced upon. And that is what we see with the Gaystapo.

WorldGoneCrazy, Christian News Network 26 Comments [6/29/2015 3:23:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom


I do not agree with premise 1. If objective moral values exist, then they are not necessarily made by a god. There may be other mechanisms by whish objective moral values can be discovered/made.

Since the rest of your argument rests on the premise that only a god can decide on objective moral truths, and I reject that premise, you have failed to demonstrate the existence of any god.

6/29/2015 3:30:32 AM


If there is no God, then objective moral values do not exist.
How do you know? What if "objective moral values" exist even if God does not?

6/29/2015 3:43:15 AM


Premise 1: If there is any objective moral value exists, then it is that the most moral choice is the one that causes the least amount of pain and therefore most amount of happiness.*
Premise 2: God, as laid out in his on teachings, can to literally everything.
Premise 3: The choice not to make a moral choice is a lesser moral good than making that moral choice, if not an act of evil.
Conclusion: The greatest moral good that God could do is remove all evil from this world and replace it with happiness, which he can do.
Observation: Their still exists evil in the world.
Conclusion: God has not done the most moral action.
Conclusion: God is either not moral, or not real. Take your pick.

*debatable, I know. But that is what god says.

6/29/2015 3:52:45 AM

Mister Spak

Premises 1 and 2 are both false, so your conclusion is a double fail.

6/29/2015 3:58:40 AM

Nomen Nescio

both premises are at best severely debatable. the second one absolutely begs for some practical support.

6/29/2015 3:58:48 AM

Churchy LaFemme

Somebody failed their course in elementary logic.

6/29/2015 5:09:20 AM


That's one well tossed word salad right there.

6/29/2015 5:49:29 AM

Doubting Thomas

Flawed from the very first premise. Therefore the entire argument fails.

6/29/2015 6:24:01 AM


Wow, boiling down your premises to some specious word-mongering? Helluva big castle on shaky sand. Try tackling SUBJECTIVE morality. Hint: the biblical reference is generally known as the "golden rule". But one need not adhere to any religion or any god to practice it.

6/29/2015 6:38:06 AM


I don't think this deductive argument is either valid or sound.

Also Wilberforce when he was fighting for an end to the Slave Trade was not wanting to end slavery. To quote the man himself ‘to give them freedom…in their present unhappy condition would…ensure not only their master’s ruin but their own’. He had a very Christian paternalistic view of the slaves. What he hoped for was that by ending the trade, slave owners would be forced to look after their slaves, by providing nutrition and medical care as they would affectively have to breed the next generation of slaves, rather than the mistreatment that led to high mortality rates being replaced by fresh incoming slaves.

May I also add, he was never a 'religious extremist' nor was he laughed, mocked and persecuted for wanting an end to the slave trade. Naturally he ruffled some feathers and had enemies from the slave traders and plantation owners lobby, but he also had a lot of support. Don't mistake parliamentary debate and lobbying of governments as some sort of persecution from opposition, because it is not the same thing. The only people being persecuted at that time were the slaves themselves. Get over this childish notion that being religious and not agreeing with x or y bill/law equals persecution. It's getting tired and ironically your ilk then completely miss it when real persecution of Christians occur elsewhere in the world, like in areas controlled by IS. If you concentrated on that then you may be surprised how much support you would receive. OK rant over.

6/29/2015 8:28:40 AM

Ace Atheist

Premise 2: Objective evil exists.

You do realize that your atheists' "affirmation" of premise 2 by atheists contradicts your atheists' "affirmation" of premise 1? Objective evil is an objective moral value.

6/29/2015 8:39:40 AM

Tricky Fox


6/29/2015 8:57:04 AM


"Objective evil exists. "

I don't believe in evil. People can be ignorant, scared, angry, desperate and/or selfish but that doesn't make them evil, just not a particularly good human.

And that's not even starting with the notions that you can either use the word "evil" to dehumanise other people or blame someone's "evil" actions on an external force like The Devil.

6/29/2015 9:14:14 AM

Goomy pls

Premise 1 is faulty. You can interpret these quotes overly literally to kind of get anecdotal support for it, but no.

Premise 2 may be true. But not all Christians--indeed, not most, mainly just the extreme conservatives and other fundies--are evil. Gobs is, tho. If the Bu¥Bull is to be believed, it almost committed omnicide.

6/29/2015 9:20:18 AM


1.) Objective morality is unnecessary for society to function. All that is necessary is common agreement to abide by certain restrictions on conduct by the members of a given society. We call these restrictions "laws." Morality is irrelevant to the question of law. I, personally, find some of our laws pertaining to business practices highly immoral, but my morality is irrelevant to the question of the law (and there are those who disagree with my stance).

2.) Neither objective good nor objective evil exists, nor is either necessary. Good and evil are questions of morality, which, as I mentioned above, is unnecessary for society to function.

So, World, you're going to need to demonstrate why objective morality is necessary for society to function before you get into any of the other stuff. Thanks for playing, though. We have some lovely parting gifts.

6/29/2015 9:47:13 AM


Objective evil doesn't exist any more than objective good exists. All morality is situational.

6/29/2015 10:32:43 AM


If morality were objective, it would exist regardless of a God, and it would mean he can't be the author or source of it since, as a conscious entity, God is not an objective subject.

Objective morality would be evidence AGAINST God's existence, not for.

6/29/2015 12:19:31 PM


Conclusion 2 does not follow from the premises and the first conclusion.

I believe this is known as affirming the consequent.

Of course, the fact the whole thing is horseshit is a bit more important but even if we grant you all the charity we can muster your argument STILL fails. You really need to think a bit harder.

6/29/2015 1:18:08 PM

Old Viking

This is your brain on scholastic philosophy.

6/29/2015 3:19:05 PM


> A-theists affirm premise 2 by pointing out how objectively "evil" Christians and the God of the Bible are.

Uh, nope. Not "objectively evil," just plain-old evil. And only some Christians and some portrayals of Yahweh.

> You do realize that your atheists' "affirmation" of premise 2 by atheists contradicts your atheists' "affirmation" of premise 1? Objective evil is an objective moral value.

That's actually the point; they never said so specifically, but the OP is trying to disprove a-theism (secular humanism, actually, but let's not be anal) by contradiction.

6/29/2015 3:49:24 PM

Why don't you list all of these "objective moral values" supposedly provided by your god, and show us how they could only come from your god.

6/29/2015 3:53:08 PM


Premise one is a load of crap, as it simply does not follow that any objective moral values MUST come from God.

Premise 2 is debatable at best - the example you gave of how objectively evil Christians and the God of the Bible are, according to your alleged atheist claims, is, funnily enough, nullified by the simple fact that Christians think that they aren't evil, and neither is the God of the Bible. In fact, they hold God up as an example of good personified. These wildly differing views about the morality of God would actually suggest that morality is actually a very murky and relative thing, unless, of course, you're actually letting slip that even Christians think God is evil, but worship and follow Him anyway because of their own evilness.

6/29/2015 4:03:44 PM


Xian logic - still hilarious

6/29/2015 7:22:23 PM

rubber chicken

You are confusing "objectively evil" with objectionable and evil.

6/29/2015 10:53:32 PM


You didn't prove your premises. Also, Christianity has the most subjective morality possible as all it would take to turn an immoral act into a moral one would be for the Big Beard to say so.

7/1/2015 1:20:44 AM

1 2 | top: comments page