Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

[Visaki]

I am pretty sure that everybody in this forum agrees that killing an innocent human is wrong. The controversial question is ¿“are unborn babies innocent humans”?
If a baby is born 2 months early (2 months before the 9 months) everybody would agree that the baby has rights and however tries to kill him would be doing something wrong. Why wouldn’t a 7 months old embryo have the same rights? Why would one baby have more rights that the other?

Sure this is derailment, but I have to wonder what countries allow on demand abortion at 7 months? I live in a country where the limit is 12 weeks, 3 months for "on demand" (still need a reason and a doctors reference for it, but that's basically a byrocratic formality) abortion and 20 weeks for special cases where one needs permit form Valvira (The National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health).

Also there is a different discussion to be had on the question if killing an innocent human is actually wrong.

 

[leroy]

I am pretty sure that everybody in this forum agrees that killing an innocent human is wrong. The controversial question is ¿“are unborn babies innocent humans”?
If a baby is born 2 months early (2 months before the 9 months) everybody would agree that the baby has rights and however tries to kill him would be doing something wrong. Why wouldn’t a 7 months old embryo have the same rights? Why would one baby have more rights that the other?

Sure this is derailment, but I have to wonder what countries allow on demand abortion at 7 months? I live in a country where the limit is 12 weeks, 3 months for "on demand" (still need a reason and a doctors reference for it, but that's basically a byrocratic formality) abortion and 20 weeks for special cases where one needs permit form Valvira (The National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health).

Also there is a different discussion to be had on the question if killing an innocent human is actually wrong.

What laws say about abortion is irrelevant; things may or may not be wrong independently on what the law says.
So is a 7 months old “unborn” a human? What about 6 months? Or 5 months?....or 2 months or 1 month? At one point does someone becomes a valuable human?

The point is that if an unborn is a human then abortion would always be wrong, if an unborn is not humans but rather just a bunch of cells that multiply (like a tumor) then abortion would always be ok,…it doesn’t make sense to say “I am pro life, except when the woman is a victim of rape”

Except for very few and statistically irrelevant exceptions, killing an innocent human is wrong, hopefully none of you would disagree with this.

 

[MarsCydonia]

I am pretty sure that everybody in this forum agrees that killing an innocent human is wrong. The controversial question is ¿“are unborn babies innocent humans”?
If a baby is born 2 months early (2 months before the 9 months) everybody would agree that the baby has rights and however tries to kill him would be doing something wrong. Why wouldn’t a 7 months old embryo have the same rights? Why would one baby have more rights that the other?

Shouldn't this happen on another thread?

There, leroy can explain why it is wrong to kill an innocent human by explaining what will certainly be 12 different definitions of "innocent" and even more excuses about why the christian god is said to have slaughtered so many of them.

 

[leroy]

I am pretty sure that everybody in this forum agrees that killing an innocent human is wrong. The controversial question is ¿“are unborn babies innocent humans”?
If a baby is born 2 months early (2 months before the 9 months) everybody would agree that the baby has rights and however tries to kill him would be doing something wrong. Why wouldn’t a 7 months old embryo have the same rights? Why would one baby have more rights that the other?

Shouldn't this happen on another thread?

There, leroy can explain why it is wrong to kill an innocent human by explaining what will certainly be 12 different definitions of "innocent" and even more excuses about why the christian god is said to have slaughtered so many of them.

We can start and endless discussion or you can simply answer clearly and unambiguously with a simple yes or a simple no. ¿is it wrong to kill an innocent human? ¿are unborn children innocent humans?...........you don’t even have to justify your answers if you don’t want, I am only interested in simple yes/no answers

Since I am very bad in defining words, I will let you use your favorite definition for innocent.

As for your irrelevant comment on the Christian God, I openly admit that according to the bible, God has done things that I personally would consider wrong, and I openly admit that you can make a valid argument against the validity of the bible on the bases of all the stuff that seems to be morally wrong.

 

[MarsCydonia]

We can start and endless discussion or you can simply answer clearly and unambiguously with a simple yes or a simple no. ¿is it wrong to kill an innocent human? ¿are unborn children innocent humans?...........you don’t even have to justify your answers if you don’t want, I am only interested in simple yes/no answers

Since I am very bad in defining words, I will let you use your favorite definition for innocent.

As for your irrelevant comment on the Christian God, I openly admit that according to the bible, God has done things that I personally would consider wrong, and I openly admit that you can make a valid argument against the validity of the bible on the bases of all the stuff that seems to be morally wrong.

What couldn't you understand about "another thread"?

You can see where your absolutism gets you there.

 

[leroy]

We can start and endless discussion or you can simply answer clearly and unambiguously with a simple yes or a simple no. ¿is it wrong to kill an innocent human? ¿are unborn children innocent humans?...........you don’t even have to justify your answers if you don’t want, I am only interested in simple yes/no answers

Since I am very bad in defining words, I will let you use your favorite definition for innocent.

As for your irrelevant comment on the Christian God, I openly admit that according to the bible, God has done things that I personally would consider wrong, and I openly admit that you can make a valid argument against the validity of the bible on the bases of all the stuff that seems to be morally wrong.

What couldn't you understand about "another thread"?

You can see where your absolutism gets you there.

Then answer in the thread of your preference.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You hope to make popular the idea that society needs people who kill unborn babies.

1) I don't 'hope to make popular' what you said. That's nothing to do with any position I've taken.
2) They're not 'unborn babies' because that's an oxymoron.

So what does that make you?

It makes me nothing because nothing follows from your incoherent assertion.

Adolf Hitler might have never personally killed anyone. But because of his ideas, the world rightly holds him responsible for the murder of millions.

So, leaving aside the argumentum ad Hitlerum, you don't notice the difference between supporting a law that recognizes women's right to abort a foetus, and the ability to command (on threat of death) the murder of millions of other people?

That just makes your argument irrational nonsense, thenexttodie.

As I pointed out before, perhaps the reason your arguments are so inane is because you're attempting to defend a position that lacks any cogency.

Regardless, as I've already taught you, the term "baby" specifies the age range: post-natal.

If you want to argue that we should consider pre-natal foetuses also to be "babies" then you need to explain why, not attempt to bully me into accepting it as that's obviously (surely?) not going to work.

I have nothing against discussing that particular idea, but you can't declare "murder" based on some special semantic distortion you've manufactured - that's not only preposterous, it's also delusional.

No one is obliged to accept your contrived oxymoron. Babies are a class best defined by the category 'early post-natal'.

Everyone already knows why you dont like it when we call unborn babies "unborn babies".

Well, everyone clearly doesn't because there's no component of LIKE/DISLIKE - the expression is an emotive oxymoron, and it's one I've already substantively shown false.

I'm not even exactly sure what you mean by pre-natalfoetuses. Most people probably would not either.

So your argument is 'I'm ignorant, other people are ignorant' therefore everyone's obliged to punch down at that level?

There is another option: I could expect people posturing their moral convictions at others to first be informed.

Perhaps then they wouldn't make incoherent mistakes like talking about 'unborn babies'.

Another quite vicious loaded assumption is that I am 'murdering' said babies.

You've become a parody, thenextttodie, the meme of the frothing fundie declaring the heathen a baby-murderer! How silly of you.

Even if you had a good argument, which you don't, that rhetorical contrivance would have utterly ruined your chance to have a decent conversation about your good argument because it's so fucking egregious and self-damaging.

But I can give you the opportunity to be in for a penny in for a pound if you like?

In what way am I "murdering babies" thenexttodie?

Explain what form that alleged murder took.

Ideas have consequences, Sparhofoc. So when you argue for the idea that murdering unborn babies is needed for us to have liberty, then you should be held to blame when people start acting on your idea.

Objection, your honour.

I am not arguing for the idea of murdering unborn babies.

Ergo, it's not my idea which is on trial, and as it's not my idea being espoused, it can't be my idea that has consequences.

The only consequence I can see is that you've started acting like a prick.

For clarity: I don't agree with all forms of abortion. I am not absolute. There is an overlap in our positions.

Sparhafoc, your position is not a mystery to me.

Contradiction: you just claimed you don't understand terms like 'pre-natal' or 'foetus', plus you've attempted to paraphrase my position as 'murdering unborn babies is needed for liberty', so my position clearly is, factually, a mystery to you.

You are like the Bible says you will be.

You are expected to express your apologetic pardon when you engage in public flatulence.

There is no overlap between you and I in this case.

You're wrong. That's fine because you've been wrong on everything else in this discussion so far.

I already offered you the opportunity to acknowledge reality via noting how nations which permit abortion implicitly acknowledge that there's an ethical distinction to be made between an 8 month old foetus and a 10 day old embryo, but if you want to trot out caricatures then we can just talk about your vacuous prejudices if that's what you really want.

As such, you can characterize me as being a polar opposite, but I remain not a polar opposite.

Ok, I'll bite. In which cases do you believe that killing an unborn baby should be illegal?

I've already told you I can't answer questions which contain loaded assumptions. There are no such thing as 'unborn babies' any more than there are 'born foetuses'.

To strip away the inane but emotional quotient and lend you respect you haven't earned by giving the best possible reading to your incoherent assumptions... I believe that there is a reasonable cut-off point somewhere between conception and birth where the foetus is sufficiently developed for us to consider its welfare as trumping the choice of its mother. This comes with a few quite specific qualifications, though. But in the majority of cases - when exactly? Sometime within the first trimester. Technology, interestingly, may have an impact on ethical consideration here, though.

There is plenty of grey area in this genuinely challenging ethical consideration of humans and their pre-adult, pre-child, pre-natal stages in which I very strongly assert that religionists of the Christian persuasion have no vaunted superiority or legitimacy, thanks to a very long, and very fucking clear picture of historical Christians wielding the power over a supine populace.

I dont consider it "ethically challenging" to know to treat adults differently from childeren.

Non-sequitur. Your sentence should imply that there IS an ethical distinction to be made.

Even men who are not christian know that it is a good thing for them to protect a woman or a child.

Even men who are not Christian?

:?

What about women who are not Christian?

Don't Christian men know that it's a good thing for them to protect men too? And the elderly? And, in fact, all members of their society?

Also, how can you claim to KNOW it's a good thing to protect women when you're arguing against their right to protect themselves?

Clearly, your mouth's taking more bloody supply than your brain.

Even to the point of risking their own lives to do so. Men do not normally hurt babies. They protect them.

Not sure what the whole vacuous macho angle is meant to be about, but it's not really surprising.

Regardless, in cases of physical abuse of children, men are just as frequently guilty as women, but when it comes to sexual abuse, men are normally the perpetrators.

So perhaps you might want to couch your OUGHT notions without using an IS.

And when we get to OUGHTS, then there's no special onus on men over women - all people OUGHT to protect children, just as all people OUGHT to protect everyone in their societies.

My position is that, at the earliest embryonic stage, there is nothing essentially human there. There is a conglomeration of cells that are busy doing cellular things. There's no heart-beat. There's no brain activity. There's not even a heart or a brain yet; just cells.

Sparhafoc. There are little things about you that no one knows about. Things you have seen or wondered about. Beautiful things that only you know. How shamefull it is of you then, to say it is better to kill life before it has a chance of the same experiences.

Every sperm is sacred?

How far down the rabbit urethra do you wish to go?

Obviously, you don't want to talk about reality... but reality has a way of not giving a fuck whether you want to countenance it or not.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Amusingly, in Nazi Germany, abortion was not only illegal but the penalty for it was (ironically) death.

Wait? Doesn't that mean that thenexttodie's position is akin to Naziism?

Doesn't that mean that because his position mimics the position in Nazi Germany that we should all thereby consider him a Nazi?

Ideas have consequences... because of his ideas, the world rightly holds him responsible for the murder of millions.

So thenexttodie should be considered responsible for the murder of millions?

Sorry if I've got all this wrong - I'm not an expert on trotting out abject fucking nonsense and pretending it's valid.

 

[TJump]

No one is saying that there are no alternatives,

That is literally the first premise of the moral argument given by most apologists.

sure there are some “atheist” alternatives for objective morality, these alternatives are widely discussed and addressed by apologetics in their publish work.

[The main point is that if “atheism” where true, what we call morality would most likely be a bi product of evolution, natural selection and/or cultural rules.

Besides even if we grant that morality came in to be naturally at the big bang (or at some other point) it wouldn’t imply that we have to follow those rules, why would “ unguided nature” create moral values that would later have to obeyed by humans?

No, the alternatives most atheist provide are subjective alternatives, the alternatives i listed are objective by the theists definition. So if theistic morality is objective, then pantheistic morality is objective. (my argument has nothing to do with evolution or the big bang)

I agree with your point, the theist has to provide good reasons to say that the existence of God is at least possible, while the atheist has to show that the existence of God is impossible

Atheist do not believe god is impossible, that is a strawman, atheist believe there is no evidence of god. Therefore the only burden of proof atheism have is to shows theists arguments don't work.

The logic would follow this line:
The existence of God is possible…..therefore miracles are possible…..therefore historical documents reporting miracles may (or may not) be reliable. ***(Depending o the characteristics of the document.)

Witches are possible
Magic is possible
Therefore therefore historical documents reporting magic may (or may not) be reliable.

No ur argument fails. Any testimony historical or personal) is insufficient to justify any claims of things that lack an empirical basis, e.g. magic, miracles, mythical creature, the paranormal, supernatural or UFOs. Quality of the historical document is irrelevant.

But granted, one first has to establish that the existence of God is possible, ........the good news is that no one in this forum that I am aware of, has ever claimed (let alone showed) that the existence of a god is impossible.

there are many argument for the logical impossibility of the christian god:

"The Impossibility of God" by Michael Martin

 

[thenexttodie]

How about you answer the question you skipped? How do you know that what the bible claims about God's views on unbelievers is correct?

Because you all believe the same thing. Don't you think that's strange?

If there was no God, you would think there would be a bit more varience among Athiests, in their world views. But in your rebellion against god, it becomes part of your nature to be against what God says is good and to support immorality and evil whenever you can. That's why you are all the same.
Haven't you ever wondered about that before? (No, probably I guess not)

 

[Sparhafoc]

How about you answer the question you skipped? How do you know that what the bible claims about God's views on unbelievers is correct?

Because you all believe the same thing. Don't you think that's strange?

Have you considered whether reason, unfettered by mystical bollocks, leads to a particular conclusion?

What I think is strange is that, even though you know that non-believers here have a massive range of beliefs, you've opted to pretend to yourself that they're all homogeneous. Says not a lot about them, but rather about your state of mind, chap.

If there was no God, you would think there would be a bit more varience among Athiests, in their world views.

That's such a load of poorly wrought shit.

Firstly, you've tried asserting it, but you've got nothing... "you're just like the Bible says you will be". Many times in the past you've waved at the Bible, but on closer inspection, you don't really seem to know what it contains. So be specific here, please. Verses, not thenexttodie's internal Bible which flexibly accommodates all his ad hoc beliefs.

Secondly, there is plenty of variation among non-believers of Christianity in terms of what they DO believe, even if you are too prejudiced to note it.

Thirdly, non-sequitur; the comparative variation, or lack thereof, of non-believers doesn't logically infer the existence of a magical man in the sky. You need to show your working there.

But in your rebellion against god,...

Yawn

Are you rebelling against Vishnu?

.... it becomes part of your nature to be against what God says is good and to support immorality and evil whenever you can.

What a typically useful way for the theist's cognitive bias to filter out reasoned discourse and pretend it's all down to mystical pap that just so happens to coincide with their preferred narrative's mystical pap.

That's why you are all the same.

No one's the same, chap. Pop your vacuous prejudice back in your pants and stop tugging on it in public.

Haven't you ever wondered about that before? (No, probably I guess not)

People don't tend to wonder about figments of a prejudiced person's cognitive bias.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

@thenexttodie

Theists tend to believe the same things:

1) Our god(s) exist;
2) Our god(s) created everything - including people;
3) Our god(s) wrote/inspired our religious text(s);
4) All other gods, religions, and religious texts are false;
5) Ergo, our religion is the one, true religion.

Whilst atheists believe that there's no evidence for gods, they believe all sorts of other things with regard to a philosophy of life. I'm a humanist, for example, other atheists will have different beliefs.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

your nature to... support immorality and evil whenever you can

My advice is that if you ever find yourself thinking this or anything like it, let alone saying it out loud or writing it... is to have a serious sit down with yourself and work on your issues.

 

[leroy]

No one is saying that there are no alternatives,

That is literally the first premise of the moral argument given by most apologists.

As I said before, yes there are some “atheist” answers that one can in theory provide to justify the existence of Objective Morality, but these alternatives are easy to refute. (feel free to pick your favorite and I will tell you why does it fail)

The point is that if atheism where true, what we call morality would simply be a product of evolution natural selection, culture and social consensus. (I bet this is what you think about OMV)

And just to be clear, the argument is not that “theistic morality” is objective, the argument is that moral values themselves are objectively real, that they exist independently of the human mind.


----

As for the rest, I disagree with you in some minor details but I agree with your general point, one cannot conclude that God, or witches exist on the basis of just historical documents, one needs to show that the existence of God (or witches) is at least possible* (additional evidence would be required)

I would argue that the arguments for God existence that are typically provided by apologetics show that the existence of God is at least possible.

(keep in mind that even an agnostic would consider that the existence of God is possible)


In this context with “possible” I simply mean that there is a realistic possibility worthy of consideration that it might be real. (Things like Aliens, King Arthur, Multiverses, Long Ness monster etc. would fall into this category)….So if for example someone presents reliable historical documents documenting ancient Aliens, one would be justified in believing in ancient Aliens. Because the existence of Aliens is “possible”
At this point, do you disagree with anything?

 

[thenexttodie]

you all believe the same thing. Don't you think that's strange?

Have you considered whether reason, unfettered by mystical bollocks, leads to a particular conclusion?

Sparhafoc. You think we need people who are willing to kill unborn babies in order for us to have liberty. The reasons you gave are; We should not call unborn babies, "unborn babies" and that some unborn babies haven't a brain or a heartbeat yet.

There is a reason why you and virtually all other Athiests are pro-abortion.


I

What I think is strange is that, even though you know that non-believers here have a massive range of beliefs..

No.

If there was no God, you would think there would be a bit more varience among Athiests, in their world views.

That's such a load of poorly wrought shit.

Oh, ok.

 

[thenexttodie]

Greetings,

@thenexttodie

Theists tend to believe the same things:

1) Our god(s) exist;
2) Our god(s) created everything - including people;
3) Our god(s) wrote/inspired our religious text(s);
4) All other gods, religions, and religious texts are false;
5) Ergo, our religion is the one, true religion.

Whilst atheists believe that there's no evidence for gods, they believe all sorts of other things with regard to a philosophy of life. I'm a humanist, for example, other atheists will have different beliefs.

Kindest regards,

James

Do you think it would be a good thing to force people to give money to the poor?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Sparhafoc. You think we need people who are willing to kill unborn babies in order for us to have liberty.

Stop lying to me about what I wrote.

Not only is such behavior indicative of far from optimal honesty on your part, it's also fucking stupid. Obviously, I am not going to believe your mendacious distortion of what I wrote.

The reasons you gave are; We should not call unborn babies, "unborn babies" and that some unborn babies haven't a brain or a heartbeat yet.

The reasons I gave for what?

If you think I am obliged to engage your fabrication when you make up my position for me, then you're no different to LEROY - an irremediable liar.

There is a reason why you and virtually all other Athiests are pro-abortion.

I'm not an atheist.

Regardless, I already gave you a perfectly adequate reason that could explain your generalization assuming it's true (which it's not).

If your religion tells you that bashing your head against the floor 5 times a day means you're a good guy beloved by God, then you may feel compelled to do it.

Not feeling compelled to engage in stupid, irrational behaviors due to not holding that nonsensical religious narrative as true might necessarily thereby lead to consider bashing one's head against the floor 5 times a day an utterly inane thing to do.

Perhaps the reason everyone else looks the same is actually due to the brain trauma you experience through bashing your head against the floor.

Regardless, I've actually explicitly told you my position on abortion, and you are trying to pretend that my position is absolute whereas I've clearly told you otherwise. As such, this alleged uniformity is clearly an artifact of your perception, and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Try taking off your prejudiced glasses and you might find a very different vista is apparent.

What I think is strange is that, even though you know that non-believers here have a massive range of beliefs..

No.

You do, so either you're lying to me, or you're lying to yourself. Or you're very, very stupid.

If there was no God, you would think there would be a bit more varience among Athiests, in their world views.

That's such a load of poorly wrought shit.

Oh, ok.

Probably the most cogent reply you made in the entire post.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Do you think it would be a good thing to force people to give money to the poor?

If tax is 'force' then yes.

I do not want people around me to be very poor. There's a whole range of reasons for this, and many of them are selfish. Therefore, I think it justified for my government to ensure that a certain minimum standard of income is maintained so that no one is excessively poor, and to do that they can use some of the money they take from me in taxes.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Because thenexttodie appears to believe that repeatedly lying about what I wrote is going to score some points for him, it only stands to reason that I show how he's lying so that everyone is able to judge whether his formulation of my position is accurate or whether it is, as I maintain, a bald-faced lie.

You think we need people who are willing to kill unborn babies in order for us to have liberty. The reasons you gave are; We should not call unborn babies, "unborn babies" and that some unborn babies haven't a brain or a heartbeat yet.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=186541#p186541

So what does this have to do with liberty?

Well, in pre-scientific ages, we didn't use facts or reason to establish the merit, subjective or legal value of an action. We used interpretation of doctrine purportedly decreed by a magical human-like being in the sky.

In most civilized nations, that is no longer a tenable basis on which to confer legal legitimacy.

Unfortunately, in some nations (typically theocracies) these religious beliefs, wholly lacking in any serious factual basis, are still given undue power and privilege over the freedoms of other members of society, for example those who do not subscribe to those religious beliefs.

As such, freeing people from the restraints imposed by fantasy contentions about the diktats of magical sky men equates quite clearly to an increase in liberty over uninspected, unearned, and imposed religious privilege.

Of course, liberty doesn't and can't actually cause other people to be constrained, and this case proves satisfactory in that respect. No True Believer (tm) is obliged to terminate their foetus if they elect not to on any grounds including their religious beliefs. They possess exactly the same freedoms they possessed before, but now everyone else has the freedom to act in line with their own conscience.

 

[thenexttodie]

You hope to make popular the idea that society needs people who kill unborn babies.

1) I don't 'hope to make popular' what you said. That's nothing to do with any position I've taken.
2) They're not 'unborn babies' because that's an oxymoron.

Oh, ok.