Is this a good argument against atheists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeonardDeNoblac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I ask you again: are you an atheist?
If atheists can provide an objective basis for morality from their worldview, I still don’t see how.
 
I’m still not familiar with any textbook on ethics, I’m still studying at high school (I’m from Italy, and here the school system is different ). Since now I only have general notions of philosophy.
 
Last edited:
LeonardDeNoblac said:
Why? For my argument to work, I don’t have to demonstrate that determinism is true. I simply assume it for the sake of argument, in order to show the ethical implications of determinism.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you mean it as a thought experiment? That would require a little more establishment of the ground definitions. For example some discussion concerning what IS free will? What is morality? These are not obvious questions.
 
I would suggest not arguing with atheists. Instead, use that energy to be the best Catholic you can be.
 
I’d agree that arguing against “atheism” needs to be narrowed because atheism is just a label to express lack of belief in something that isn’t clearly defined anyway (theism). Arguing certain propositions of naturalism to show its metaphysical implications can clear away misconceptions or assumptions many people have about the (in)coherence of a reductive, materialist worldview. For example, as the OP hints at, the failure to account for the conscious (name removed by moderator)ut of a subjective observer.

This argument reminds me of C.S. Lewis’s Abolition of Man.
 
Last edited:
Atheists don’t generally change their mind over these types of arguments, any more than a Catholic would change their mind and become atheist as a result of the arguments atheists make. Like I said, the time and energy is better spent developing oneself into the best Catholic they can be. In my opinion, that doesn’t include arguing with people.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you Leonard. In fact, renowned philosopher Nietzsche followed this same logic and came to the same conclusion, that without God there is no basis for morality. You will find many atheists who shout ‘humanism is the answer!’ but the logic does not support it, as you know.
 
I think that would be reasonable enough for some atheists, but not all of them, a lot of atheists have different reasons for being atheist, and that’s not going to work on all of them. Now, it’s not that it’s a bad argument, but there are some people it’s just not going to work on. It’s like how a lot of times atheists will say that Christians only believe in Christianity because they were raised that way, well I wasn’t raised a Christian, I wasn’t really raised anything, (although I would argue my family was culturally Christian). Same kind of issue, if you want to debate with an atheist, you need to know why they identify as such. Again, I don’t take issue with what you say, I think it’s a good argument, but it’s not going to persuade everyone.
 
QwertyGirl said:
I would suggest not arguing with atheists.
Click to expand...
No disrespect, but the Catholic Church has a rich history of philosophy for a reason. It is not necessarily essential to the faith, but it is very important for our intellectual development .

What i would say is that we do not really have the power to change peoples minds, but rather we should argue our case the best we can and let God take care of the rest.
 
Last edited:
It really seems like you should change the title of your thread from, “Is this a good argument against atheists?” To “I’m Convinced I have Atheists Beat Regardless of Whether They Agree”.
 
I’m simply not convinced by the objections to my argument, so I still consider it valid, and I will until someone convincingly proves me wrong.
Are you a Catholic?
 
Last edited:
Depends on who you ask. The Catholic Church and I differ on that point. They would say I am. I would say I am not.
 
That reminds me, is it possible to block people on this site?

*To anyone curious about the answer, you can ignore people for up to four months? I don’t know why only four months, but it is a start.
 
Last edited:
When you say it logically follows you can’t blame people, I guess my response would be “So what?” I don’t think little children have the capacity to reason out right from wrong, but you can still train them to be more social. You can and should teach dogs social behaviour regardless of whether they know why they do it, or have free will.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top