Is this a good argument against atheists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeonardDeNoblac
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, not you. I blocked the person I wanted to block already. I wouldn’t have answered your question and offered a rebuttal if I wanted to block you.
 
In an atheistic/materialistic universe, the existence of wich would have no objective purpouse or meaning, why should anyone care about teaching biological organisms, whose thoughts would only be the product of sophisticated chemistry and thus follow physical deterministic laws or random chance, who would have randomly appeared on an insignificant planet that revolves around one of the countless stars of one of the countless galaxies of this universe, and whose existance would have no objective purpouse or meaning, since they would ultimately come from nothing and be doomed to disappear after an insignificant amount of time, how to live socially? The only answer I can see to this question is “Because everyone would be happier/safer”, wich would make it an hypotetical imperative. But, at least since the time of Kant, it has been shown that every objective moral system has to be ultimately founded upon categorical imperatives (moral imperatives valid in themselves ). I simply don’t see any way atheism could account for categorical imperatives.
 
Last edited:
LeonardDeNoblac said:
to be ultimately founded upon categorical imperatives (moral imperatives valid in themselves ). I simply don’t see any way atheism could account for categorical imperatives.
Click to expand...
This may be a stupid question but since I ask stupid questions all the time…
If moral imperatives are valid in themselves then why can’t atheists see that they are valid in themselves? Are atheists incapable of understanding the validity of morality just because they don’t accept that it comes from an objective source? I’m confused on what you’re trying to say here. Sorry.
 
Pattylt said:
This may be a stupid question but since I ask stupid questions all the time…
If moral imperatives are valid in themselves then why can’t atheists see that they are valid in themselves?
Click to expand...
I don’t think your question is stupid.
One can’t simply take a moral imperative and declare it to be categorical arbitrarily. It must be justified. In a Christian theistic worldview, the justification for some moral imperatives being categorical is that God created the world the way He did and gave humans the natural law and the positive divine law in order that they could cooperate to carry out His plan for creation.
 
You claim you haven’t read extensively on ethics, but you also claim that "at least since the time of Kant, it has been shown that every objective moral system has to be ultimately founded upon categorical imperatives (moral imperatives valid in themselves ). "

By your own admission, you have no idea what has been demonstrated or not. You are like a guy staring at his feet on a desert island claiming that you have proven the Pacific Ocean is sandy.
 
I believe you meant this as a reply to Leonard! It’s ok, I do that, too! :hugs:
 
It’s not exactly like that. I have a general knowledge of philosophy, with a particular knowledge of some aspects. Given that, it’s not unreasonable to claim that I have a general vision of ethics. I’ve a general knowledge of, for example, the ethical theories of Spinoza, Voltaire, Holbach, De Sade, Hume, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, Russel, Sartre and Harris. These are all major secular philosophers, and I haven’t found a convincing ethical theory in anyone of them.
 
I think it is, given the fact that I can’t find any way a non-theistic philosophical sistem could justify that.
 
“I haven’t found a convincing ethical theory in anyone of them.”

Are you familiar with the fallacy of arguments from personal incredulity? Every single one of your points has been challenged, but you are convinced you are right. I’m certain you will continue to think you are right no matter what anyone says. All you have to do is say, “Nah, I still think I’m right.”

Which is exactly why you should change the title of this thread. It isn’t a question. It’s a statement that you think you are right. Good for you. You think you are right.
 
Isn’t it some kind of genetic fallacy or ad hominem attack?
I tried to answer every objection, but if I were to find a valid objection I would change my mind.
 
You repeatedly claim that you"aren’t convinced" by arguments. How could change your mind based on an argument if it needs to convince you first?
 
Could moral imperatives have developed in our minds from evolutionary processes? As a social species, could we have realized that certain behaviors are very advantageous to the group and other behaviors are detrimental and thus the group selected for the advantageous? Without realizing what we were doing, we nonetheless became more moral and defined morality as what we witnessed to be good for the group? Attaching those morals to a God is a later development. We behaved morally, in general, long before we had a God to attach them to. Just thinking out loud here…
 
That’s simple. I look at the argument and, if I find it convincing, I change my mind. Everyone should do so in a rational discussion, isn’t it so?
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
We behaved morally, in general, long before we had a God to attach them to.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the moment that you begin to understand the concepts of good and evil, and the concept of others, then by necessity you begin to develop the concept of morality.
 
Last edited:
“Advantageous” and “morally good” aren’t necessarily the same. It still gives a basis for hypotetical imperatives, not categorical imperatives.
 
How does anyone determine what is objectively good and evil? What is the ultimate foundation for ethics?
 
Last edited:
LeonardDeNoblac said:
Isn’t it some kind of genetic fallacy or ad hominem attack?
I tried to answer every objection, but if I were to find a valid objection I would change my mind.
Click to expand...
There is no possible objection to the general substance of your argument insomuch as what you intend to achieve with it, but there are specific points where an atheist could throw a red herring into the cogwheels of one of your premises. Such as your use of the idea described as determinism. What do you mean by determinism? Some physical outcomes are random. This of course doesn’t do anything to disprove the core of your argument, but it can succeed in throwing the argument of course and therefore give the illusion that the rest of the argument must be wrong; which is of course the whole purpose of a red-herring.

Also, you have to distinguish between “moral truth” and ethical questions related to practical preference. It’s a practical moral truth that it is horrible to be killed especially for the wrong reasons. An atheist can agree with that, But if an atheist wants to argue that it is an objective truth that stabbing somebody to death is immoral, this is where your argument has strength, and it is important to help them understand the difference. But you must also explain why it is true that something or other is objectively wrong, and it is not enough to simply say that “God commands us” because that alone is just another version of might makes right - not moral truth.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top