Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2015, 07:21 PM
Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?
Ok yet another person trying to make a new argument as to why atheists are wrong. "Evil" disproves atheism.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/4792...es-atheism

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 08:00 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2015 08:13 PM by Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue.)
RE: Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?
A) Evil is in this instance a way of saying "something I strongly disaprove of" rather than "something objectively bad."

B) I'm certain that the whole "everything is an illusion" thing is specific to one philosophy of one of the "Eastern Pantheistic Religions" rather than being common to all of them. (IIRC it's a spin off of Confusiousism [Spelling?]?)

C) I don't even care if he's right (He's not.) this is a terrible metaphor:
Quote:Evil is like rust in a car: If you take all of the rust out of a car, you have a better car; if you take the car out of the rust, you have nothing.

Rust is iron oxide. Which is a thing that exists. It isn't "the lack of a certain quality" which is how he's defining evil.

Edit: I explained that poorly. He said that: "Evil is exclusively a quality of the lack of good." He then demonstrated that by creating an example where the example isn't the lack of something.

This guy is seriously getting paid to write this?

D) What I've always called the argument of contrast (good can exist without evil, evil cannot exist without good) would, at best, only be applicable to a certain subset of evil things; things that are negations of good things.

So I can take candy from a baby or give candy from a baby, one is the opposite of the other. The negation of punting a baby into a wall is not punting a baby into the wall, there is no direct contrast to be made, it is a distinct act in it's own right.

Edit: That would also make something entirely without good characteristics (like a rock) evil while displaying none of the traits of an evil thing. Oops.

F) You-

G) Demonstrate that objective evil and good exist.

H) Demonstrate that god couldn't have made a situation in which evil is not the negation of good. So we could have had a world without evil. (Omnipotent and all that.)

I) Precident from a cool cat (C.S. Lewis is a pimp. I'm going to re-read the Screwtape Letters sometime.) doesn't mean shit. Argument from authority.

J) Edit: He also cited some of the idiosyncracies of the english language to demonstrate that evil= a lack of goodness/ a negation of good. I trust I don't need to explain why that's retarded.

Everything else is more, less interesting unfounded assertions. Not even gonna bother.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue's post
20-01-2015, 08:07 PM
RE: Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?
I got as far as the first paragraph and saw the whole thing is based on a false premise.

Atheism doesn't need evil to be true. Atheism says nothing about evil at all. Atheism simply means "lack of belief in god ". That's it. That some atheists choose to rail against religion doesn't matter. Some don't, but it doesn't make them less of a non believer than a Dawkins.

This whole argument is just bull shit.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
20-01-2015, 08:23 PM
RE: Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?
"We could put it this way: The shadows prove the sunshine. There can be sunshine without shadows, but there can't be shadows without sunshine. In other words, there can be good without evil, but there can't be evil without good."

In other words, evil is the shadow of the good? The fuck that even mean? Is he talking Plato's Cave or what? The whole argument is destroyed just by rejecting the notion of good and evil. There is no good, there is no evil, there is only THE ÜBERMENSCH.

[Image: uber.jpeg]

"Richard Dawkins and other atheists might object, "But how can the God of the Bible be the standard of goodness? Doesn't He do evil in the Old Testament? And why would a good God allow evil to continue?" Those are some of the many questions I address in my new book, Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case, from which this column was adapted. Look for more here in the coming weeks."

A PhD in Christian Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. How impressive. Buy my book! Buy my book!

I'm gonna write me one of them books and scam some stupid fundies too! "From Heidegger to Heaven in 8 Easy Pieces: A Nihilist's Guide to Nirvana."

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like GirlyMan's post
20-01-2015, 08:24 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2015 08:27 PM by Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue.)
RE: Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?
(20-01-2015 08:07 PM)BnW Wrote:  I got as far as the first paragraph and saw the whole thing is based on a false premise.

Atheism doesn't need evil to be true. Atheism says nothing about evil at all. Atheism simply means "lack of belief in god ". That's it. That some atheists choose to rail against religion doesn't matter. Some don't, but it doesn't make them less of a non believer than a Dawkins.

This whole argument is just bull shit.

True but to dismiss an argument on it's use of words and their definitions is pedantic. It's poor rigor.

I can make an argument that describes some of the atributes of a family of organisms, that I refer to as "Fish" rather than "[Formal Name of the Family]." So when he say's "Atheists" rather than "a subset of atheists who claim objective morality" he is failing to recognise the difference. It's an important difference and it's something he should be called out on but his regurgitated argument should still stand on it's merits.

That he's failed to express himself doesn't make his argument less sound. His factual and logical errors do that for him.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 08:42 PM
RE: Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?
(20-01-2015 08:24 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  That he's failed to express himself doesn't make his argument less sound. His factual and logical errors do that for him.

Oh all right.

"To explain why, we need to go back to Augustine who puzzled over the following argument:
1. God created all things.
2. Evil is a thing.
3. Therefore, God created evil.

How could a good God create evil? If those first two premises are true, He did, and this is a God problem. So God must not be good after all. But then Augustine realized that the second premise is not true. While evil is real, it's not a 'thing.' Evil doesn't exist on its own. It only exists as a lack or a deficiency in a good thing."

The conclusion assumes the premises. Why should premise 2 be less self-evident and incontrovertible than premise 1? Neither is sound. And I hate it when fuckers who supposedly should know better with their PhD and shit use the word "true" instead of "sound".

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2015, 09:00 PM
RE: Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?
[Image: Anu-sky-god-and-fatherking-of-the-god-77...ouqs1.jpeg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like pablo's post
20-01-2015, 10:11 PM
RE: Anyone want to try to tackle this moron's OP/ED?
(20-01-2015 07:21 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  Ok yet another person trying to make a new argument as to why atheists are wrong. "Evil" disproves atheism.

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/4792...es-atheism

"Atheists tend to be caught in the middle. In one breath they are claiming there is no good, evil or justice because only material things exist—we are just material molecular machines "dancing to the music" of our DNA (as Dawkins himself put it)."

Um, no. He goes off the rails right there.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: