Iron Chariots Wiki - User contributions [en]

Science can't touch god

2011-10-24T14:45:49Z

DukeTwicep: Added category and template

It may be true that [[Science]] cannot touch God, but perhaps a god needs to be selected as the true god for science to "touch".
This argument goes no where towards stating that a god exists, especially a specific god of ones' preference.

It may also be valuable to realize that Science comments on the [[natural]], not the [[supernatural]]. Science has nothing yet to prove on the existence of a God -- as much as famous [[apologist]]s like to argue, nothing of the sort is true.

==Counter Apologetics==
Presumably when this argument is made, the individual will mean either physically or non-physically. So to rule out these possibilities it may be useful to ask what they mean precisely, this will help identify any meanings that are unknown and help to stop the possibility of '[[moving the goalposts]]'.

If the individual means physically then this will obviously mean nothing as God is not meant to be physical and science technically isn't either. This doesn't prove anything whatsoever.
If they mean non-physically then they may be refering to the notion that science has nothing to say on the truly supernatural.
This is relatively true, however, if saying that "you can't prove my religion wrong, so my god is possible to exist" is the argument being made then it may be fitting to raise the notion of them considering every other religion ever conceived -- [[hinduism]], [[islam]], [[pastafarianism]], [[catholicism]], [[christianity]], or any of the ancient religions that have been wiped out it would seem. If the user of the argument does not want to for any reason, then ask why. The argument they presented is equally valuable to every conceived deity, and should not be used only for a single one of preference.

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

You can't prove God doesn't exist

2011-10-24T14:44:55Z

DukeTwicep: Added category

It is not uncommon to hear statements like, "'''You can't prove God doesn't exist'''," from [[apologist]]s when they are challenged to support the claim that [[God]] exists. Such statements are an attempt to [[shift the burden of proof]], a kind of [[logical fallacy]].

Statements like this — which is a special case of the more general claim, "[[You can't prove a negative]]" — are based on the premise that belief in God is justified until sufficient [[evidence]] is presented to refute such existence. While this response may be considered sound under a world view which accepts the premise, this is simply a form of [[compartmentalization]]. If we were to apply that premise to all claims, we'd be unable to develop any useful picture of [[reality]], since every claim would then have to be accepted as [[true]] (until it is disproved — a burden which is especially difficult when dealing with [[supernatural]] claims).

To put it more bluntly, no sane human being would seriously claim that because we have not ''disproved'' the existence of [[leprechaun]]s or [[unicorn]]s, they must therefore exist (or must be ''assumed'' to exist).

More tellingly, though, apologists typically only apply this premise to questions that address ''their particular religion'' — and nothing else. The same [[Christian]], for example, who argues, "You can't prove God doesn't exist," would almost certainly reject such an attempt to shift the burden of proof if it was attempted by, say, a [[Hindu]]: "You can't prove [[Vishnu]] doesn't exist!" This compartmentalization is a form of [[special pleading]].

A somewhat famous counter-argument was posed by [[Bertrand Russell]] when he said the following:

: "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

'''Great Pumpkin Objection'''

Plantinga anticipates the aforementioned argument-- "To put it more bluntly, no sane human being would seriously claim that because we have not disproved the existence of leprechauns or unicorns, they must therefore exist (or must be assumed to exist)."

Plantinga suggests that one could object to the validity and justification for religious belief by arguing that if belief in God can be basic, why can't any belief be basic such as belief in a Great Pumpkin? Plantinga argues that our culture and our society helps form our understandings of rationality and wants to move away from a foundationalist account for basic beliefs. There is a problem to Plantinga's response, namely the lack of a universal set of standards for judging whether a particular belief can be reasonably taken to be basic.

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Atheists know there is a God

2011-10-24T14:43:41Z

DukeTwicep: Added template

This argument is made against [[atheist]]s. [[Theist]]s claim that the existence of [[God]] is so axiomatic, that nobody can deny God. Often times rather than actually providing [[proof]] or valid argument for their God, they resort to claiming that the [[evidence]] is all around us. Or they claim that God somehow is either a part of everyone or since God created our [[soul]]s/life we, therefore, already know him. Christians in particular often cite Romans 1:20 "''The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; that they are without excuse.''" Basically, the evidence is so clear that no one can deny it or be excused from accepting it. Based on that assumption, theists claim that all atheists just "pretend" not to believe in God and paint atheists as hypocrites.

Of course, this argument is utter nonsense.

For the most part, it is not axiomatic, obvious, or self-evident that there is a God (feel free to further explore this site to see why). Rather, the theist who makes this argument is completely blinded by their own faith in their own personal beliefs that they have deluded themselves into thinking that their [[belief]]s are universally shared and accepted internally by every human on earth. The reason why this is [[delusion]]al is because there is no way to know what every human thinks or believes, and thus this argument depends on loads of wishful thinking.

It is also a terrible attempt to claim that the person knows the atheist better than the atheist. Just as a person could easily spot the ludicrousness in the statement that they know that universal invisible sky pixies exist (and they just pretend that they don't believe), a theist should know better than to obnoxiously assert that atheists pretend not to believe in their particular god.

Most of the time, the theist who uses this argument does not have a leg to stand on. Therefore, the theist retreats to wishful thinking.

As for Bible verses like Romans 1:20, this is an fallacious argument called [[Argument from scripture]]. However, it all boils down to circular reasoning, and frankly using Bible verses are just as valid as claiming the statements from any other holy text is just as equally valid. For instance, a Christian can deny Allah all they wish, but according to the Koran, they are without excuse. The Primordial Covenant in Islam states Allah created our souls and we all have testified that he is our God before we were even born (7:172-174: "''When thy Lord drew forth from the Children of Adam -from their loins- their descendants, and made them testify concerning themselves, (saying): "Am I not your Lord (Who cherishes and sustains you)?" They said: "Yea! We do testify!: (This), lest ye should say on the Day of Judgment: "Of this we were never mindful;" or lest ye should say: Our fathers before us took false gods''.) It is common for religions to include a system that links all human beings as being created by a specific creator and humans are without excuse, such as "thetans" in Scientology. The thing is, it is all faith-based and impossible to empirically verify with any evidence.

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]
[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for the existence of God]]
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]

You just want to sin

2011-10-24T14:43:01Z

DukeTwicep: Edited category and added template

This argument is made against [[atheist]]s as an attempt to point out their (potential) fear of living the religious lifestyles, and is related to the accusation that [[atheists are just in denial]].

The best ways to counter it are the following:

1. Ignore it; it's not really an argument to begin with

2. Agree to it with sarcasm; once again it's not an argument, or at least not a good one.

[[Theist]]s sin all the time; their belief system is based on faith alone, or at least some of them believe that. Some of them claim that without religion there are no morals, even though there have been countless immoral acts done at the hands of religion. The [[Protestant]] [[Christian]] religion doesn't have regulations about being moral - to them you just have to pray your sins away, so in a sense, with religion there are still immoral things.

The Holocaust, Jihad, the Crusades, and the time of reform in Europe during and after the Middle Ages are fine examples of what harm religion can lead to.

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Talk:Burden of proof

2011-10-24T14:40:06Z

DukeTwicep:

The apologetics section should probably be moved as a specific argument "Can't disprove God" or similar...and a link left in its place to the new location.

[[User:Sans Deity|Sans Deity]] 16:15, 19 June 2006 (MST)

I think it should be added as an example, how the burden of proof is used in science and what evidence is. Evidence in a court is far from synonymous with evidence in science, eg. testimonials usually doesn't count as evidence (You can probably find thousands of people that will claim they had near-death experiences where they met Jesus)

[[User:DukeTwicep|DukeTwicep]] 09:40, 24 October 2011 (CDT)

That's not in my Bible

2011-10-24T14:19:20Z

DukeTwicep:

Many [[Christian]]s are not familiar with large sections of the [[Bible]]; and, as such, have not have noticed some of its odder or more abhorrent passages, such as the injunction against wearing clothes of wool and linen ({{Bible|Deuteronomy 22:11}}) or [[Jephthah]]'s human sacrifice ({{Bible|Judges 11:30-40}}). Such people may express disbelief that such things are in the Bible.

The best way to counter this argument is to show the person the relevant passage. There are several web sites and books that list questionable passages in the Bible.

There are also searchable Bible applications for smartphones, PDAs, and other mobile devices. It can be useful to have one as a reference.

== Human Sacrifice ==

The most famous incident of human sacrifice is the Akedah,({{Bible|Genesis 22:1-24}}) the Binding of Isaac. It is worth noting that, though Abraham is commanded by God to sacrifice Isaac at the mountaintop, God intervenes at the last moment. There has been a great deal of work on this in [[Jewish apologetics]] and [[Christian apologetics]]. There is a corresponding story in Islam, which credits the son as [[Ismail]] instead of Isaac.

Jephthah ritually sacrifices his daughter to God ({{Bible|Judges 11:29-40}}) after vowing to sacrifice the first thing that greets him when he returns from his military victory over the Ammonites.

After the Israelites violate God's commandments, God commands Joshua to instruct the people in ritual repentance, which includes the destruction of those who violated the covenant by fire. ({{Bible|Joshua 7:15}}) It is ambiguous as to whether this is ritual sacrifice performed by the tribe or whether it is performed directly by God.

Jeroboam prophecies that [[Josiah]] will sacrifice pagan priests who use shrines to God. ({{Bible|1 Kings 13:2}}) Josiah later executes them, and burns their bones. ({{Bible|2 Kings 23:20}})

== Rape ==

According to Deuteronomy, the punishment for raping a woman who is not engaged is restitution of fifty-pieces of silver to the woman's father, and the man is required to marry the woman he has raped. ({{Bible|Deuteronomy 22:28}}) Divorce is prohibited, ({{Bible|Deuteronomy 22:29}}) and the woman has no right to divorce. If a man rapes a woman who is engaged, both the man and the woman are to be stoned to death; the woman because she did not cry out for help. ({{Bible|Deuteronomy 22:23-24}})

Throughout the Bible, rape is encouraged as a military tactic, and sanctions the raping of virgin women as prizes of war.

At Jabesh Gilead, ({{Bible|Judges 21:10-12}}) Israelites kill all of the men and non-virgin women. They take four-hundred virgin women to their camp. While the passage is vague, it does strongly imply that those women were raped.

== External link ==
* [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]
* [http://www.BibleStudyTools.com/ Bible Study Tools]
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/ Biblegateway]

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Template:Common objections

2011-10-24T14:14:16Z

DukeTwicep: Edited one entry to enable it to become bold on the entry's page (no redirection)

{{Navbox|name = Common objections
|titlestyle = background:#FFC9C1;
|title=[[Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics]]
|groupstyle = background:#FFDDDC;

|group1=Personal
|list1=''[[Why are you trying to tear down other people's faith?]]'' · ''[[Why can't everyone just have their beliefs?]]'' · ''[[What are your qualifications?]]'' · ''[[So you believe in nothing?]]'' · ''[[You are a communist]]'' · ''[[Why do atheists inspire such hatred?]]''

|group2=Religious
|list2=''[[That's not in my Bible]]'' · ''[[They're not true Christians]]'' · ''[[You just want to sin]]'' · ''[[Atheists know there is a God]]'' · ''[[It takes more faith to disbelieve than it does to believe]]'' · ''[[God doesn't believe in atheists]]'' · ''[[Science is a faith]]'' · ''[[Atheism is a religion]]'' · ''[[Atheists worship materialism]]'' · ''[[Hypocrisy of celebrating religious holidays]]'' · ''[[Atheism is based on faith]]''

|group3=Science and logic
|list3=''[[You can't prove God doesn't exist]]'' · ''[[Science can't touch god]]'' · ''[[God can't be defined]]'' · ''[[So you think we came from monkeys|So you think we came from nothing / pondsoup / monkeys?]]'' · ''[[If God didn't create everything, who did?]]'' · ''[[That might be true for you, but its not true for me]]'' · ''[[Religion is another way of knowing]]'' · ''[[God is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones]]'' · ''[[Satan is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones]]'' · ''[[Tides come in, tides go out. You cant explain that]]''

}}

It takes more faith to disbelieve than it does to believe

2011-10-24T14:10:40Z

DukeTwicep: Edited category and added template

==Overview==

[[Atheist]]s maintain that there is currently no [[evidence]] to justify positive belief in [[God]]. Therefore, it is not necessary, [[logic|logical]] or reasonable to [[belief|believe]] in any of the various gods posited by world religions. As the saying explains, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If this is true of other things it is probably true of the divine concept as well. When the existence of a god is demonstrated [[beyond a reasonable doubt]], it will then be time to believe. For the purposes of this discussion, the relevant definition of faith is:

:Faith is accepting a claim as true regardless of confrontations with evidence that oppose it.

== Counter Apologetics==

When there is not sufficient evidence to support a given claim, the default position should be rational skepticism. With that in mind, not believing in fairies or Father Christmas is not an act of faith, because those who are making these claims have the [[burden of proof]], and must provide evidence why that position should be accepted. Technically, such positions require ''less'' a statement of [[faith]], in the same sense that 0 is less than 1. Different kinds of atheism could be described as having different amounts of faith:

* [[strong atheism]] - those atheists believing there is no god, with insufficient evidence
* [[weak atheism|weak (or default) atheism]] - those atheists simply lacking a belief in the god.

An atheist may wish to bring up this distinction to derail the "Atheism is a kind of faith" argument, as most consider themselves weak/default atheists. Some theists, such as [[Ray Comfort]], may try to make the claim that this category is actually [[agnosticism|agnostics]], as they usually represent strong atheism as the standard atheist position.

Definitionally, it doesn't make sense to say that disbelieving "takes more faith," as it doesn't require any faith not to place one's belief in unsubstantiated truth claims. It would be like saying that not-playing-sports requires more athletics than playing football.

There is no evidence for the presence of a higher power, which is why theists need faith-- to replace evidence. The irony is that most of them have the confidence to deny the existence of fairy tale creatures from other mythologies and cultures, for which there is likewise no evidence.

Most religions assert that [[faith is a virtue]], and they are criticizing atheists for having more faith (or the same amount they do as the case may be). They are only criticizing themselves. An apt question to directly follow the theists objection would be "does faith prove me wrong?".

==Related Pages==

*[[Atheism is based on faith]]
*[[Atheism is a religion]]

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

God doesn't believe in atheists

2011-10-24T14:10:15Z

DukeTwicep: Edited category and added template

The slogan "[[God]] doesn't believe in [[atheist]]s" is a rhetorical tactic rather than an actual argument.

== Counter-arguments ==

=== God is not omniscient ===
"God doesn't believe in atheists" can be interpreted to mean that God does not know about the millions of people who don't believe he exists, which means that God is not [[omniscient]].

=== Atheists are lying ===
: ''Main article: [[There are no atheists]].''
This claim can also be interpreted to mean "Atheists secretly believe that there is a god, and God, who is omniscient, knows this."

If this argument is used against an atheist who truly doesn't believe in any gods, it comes across as dismissive and ignorant.

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Science is a faith

2011-10-24T14:06:07Z

DukeTwicep: Edited category and added template

'''Science is a faith''' is a statement that reflects a [[straw man]] or [[equivocation]] fallacy propagated by apologists to attempt to discredit "belief" in science as being no more sound than believing in god. Science does contain philosophical underpinnings which are unprovable, which thus require "faith" in the epistemological sense. However, science distinguishes itself from purely faith-based beliefs in the same way that philosophy does; by the application of logic. Science also goes one step further by adhering to demonstrable, repeatable experiments and empirical data.

Furthermore, the statement indirectly generates a [[false dilemma]] by positioning science as "the dogma of the atheist". The individual who does not believe in god, but does a daily ritual to summon fairies, is likewise an atheist, but is unlikely a scientist. Science is not synonymous with atheism.

== Development of Scientific "Beliefs" ==

Most respected scientific papers, a key step for introducing new concepts into widespread belief, are peer-reviewed, in that other scientists in the relevant field are able to judge the experiment or study detailed in the paper for soundness of both experimental design and conclusions reached. Additionally, the process described should, when replicated, produce results that support the same conclusion -- scientists continually replicate and often refine experiments in order to test the validity of claims and refine theories. Claims that scientists make, therefore, are supported by developed systems of logic and reason. Anyone with the resources to replicate an experiment or the intellectual capacity to criticize conclusions is free to do so, leading to a continual development of more complex scientific concepts through more nuanced understanding of our world.

In fact, the reliable functionality of so many of our modern technological conveniences rely heavily on the replicability of science. For example, modern telecommunications technology, which use the exchange of "packets" of encoded information over a myriad of mediums, from wireless technology to fiber optics, is able to relay complex information in a way that can be decoded by the recipient. While there is always the possibility of error due to unforeseen or unaccountable occurrences, the integrity of the data is more often than not preserved, and not due to "faith" in the functioning of the electronics.

== Religious Beliefs ==
Religious beliefs, are supported, most often, solely by faith alone. The Christian evangelical who promises the potential convert a paradise after death has no means to demonstrate their claims. Relying on "sacred" texts and/or dogma, many of their beliefs have no basis for logical understanding and rely simply on accepting these works as factual.

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Atheists worship materialism

2011-10-24T14:03:21Z

DukeTwicep: Added template

==Rebuttal==
The notions of [[atheism]] and [[materialism]] are two different concepts, and are not by design mutually inclusive ideas that stand hand in hand as an indistinguishable [[ideological]] position. Just because you are an atheist it does not mean you are materialistic; this statement is as correct a stance as saying that because you are a [[theist]] you are not materialistic.

==Definitions==
To fully understand whether or not "[[Atheism|atheists]] [[worship]] [[materialism]]" the terms of this statement need to be defined, which are 'atheists', 'worship' and 'materialism'. In its broadest sense, an 'atheist' is a person who lacks belief in any form of [[Deity]]; 'worship' as a noun is defined as the feeling or expression of reverence for a deity, and as a verb means showing reverence and adoration for (a deity) or to honour with [[Religion|religious]] rights; and 'materialism' can either be defined as:

:1.) a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than [[Spirit|spiritual]] values,

:2a) the [[doctrine]] that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications or

:2b) the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to material agency (Dialectical Materialism).

Using these definitions, the concept of whether or not 'atheists worship materialism' is very complex as the notions of 'atheism', 'worship' and 'materialism' on their own merits are multifaceted issues, as each term changes meaning depending on what context you use it in, such as whether or not you use the term 'materialism' in a capitalist or scientific sense. Atheists are not necessarily capitalist or scientific in their ideological stance, just as [[Theism|theists]] are not necessarily capitalist or [[Science|scientific]] in their ideological stance, and consequently to assert that 'atheists worship materialism' is a misguided claim.

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Hypocrisy of celebrating religious holidays

2011-10-24T14:02:00Z

DukeTwicep: Added categories

This argument is most frequently used as a means of critisizing [[atheist]]s, or perhaps those of other [[faith]]s than their own, for celebrating a holiday not of their faith (or no faith). The argument does not seem to adress Anyones beliefs aside from identifying what they are, and then quite possibly critisizing the person, so in that sense the argument is an [[ad hominem]].
It doesn't have much of a purpose in an actual argument or debate and usually leads to a pointless attempt at discrediting the opponent or making them look silly or in a bad light.

==Counter-apologetics==
It may also be useful to realise that, for atheists, the holiday in question is not celebrated for its religious values and should not be considered hypocritical on any level. This is probably true for most other faiths although there is most likely some variation, the same holiday may be celebrated for different reasons by different Cultures or [[Religion]]s.

Also, most holidays have been co-opted by newer religions which they then claim as their own. Both Christmas and Easter are old pagan celebrations that Christianity claimed.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#Pre-Christian_background][http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism][http://www.thercg.org/books/ttooe.html]

So the counter argument is simple, the apologetic is unknowingly hypocritical, they are themselves celebrating the holidays of other religions.

{{Common objections}}

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Criticisms of atheism]]

Hypocrisy of celebrating religious holidays

2011-10-24T13:54:35Z

DukeTwicep: /* Counter-apologetics */

Hypocrisy of celebrating religious holidays

2011-10-24T13:54:07Z

DukeTwicep: /* Counter-apologetics */

Hypocrisy of celebrating religious holidays

2011-10-24T13:53:40Z

DukeTwicep: /* Counter-apologetics */ Added a counter-argument + sources

This argument is most frequently used as a means of critisizing [[atheist]]s, or perhaps those of other [[faith]]s than their own, for celebrating a holiday not of their faith (or no faith). The argument does not seem to adress Anyones beliefs aside from identifying what they are, and then quite possibly critisizing the person, so in that sense the argument is an [[ad hominem]].
It doesn't have much of a purpose in an actual argument or debate and usually leads to a pointless attempt at discrediting the opponent or making them look silly or in a bad light.

==Counter-apologetics==
It may also be useful to realise that, for atheists, the holiday in question is not celebrated for its religious values and should not be considered hypocritical on any level. This is probably true for most other faiths although there is most likely some variation, the same holiday may be celebrated for different reasons by different Cultures or [[Religion]]s.

Also, most holidays have been co-opted by newer religions which they then claim as their own. Both Christmas and Easter are old pagan celebrations that Christianity claimed.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#Pre-Christian_background][http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism][http://www.thercg.org/books/ttooe.html]
So the counter argument is simple, the apologetic is unknowingly hypocritical, they are themselves celebrating the holidays of other religions.

Fallacy of composition

2011-10-24T12:50:50Z

DukeTwicep: This is not an argument, it doesn't need counter-arguments as the examples given are already (more) obviously fallacious

The '''Fallacy of composition''' is the fallacy of concluding that something that is true of the parts is also true of the whole, or that something that is true of the whole is also true of the parts.

== Examples ==
* If a man's genes are selfish, the man is also selfish.[http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/dover-a-half-decade-later-and-what-difference-did-it-really-make/]
* Every atom in my body is invisible to the naked eye. Therefore, I am invisible to the naked eye.
* In the [[Acts|Book of Acts]], Luke's description of cities, countries and various customs is historically accurate. Therefore, everything in the Book of Acts is historically accurate.
* In 2011, presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that "corporations are people", and [http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/08/romney-defends-corporations-are-people-remark/Dki83U1nIMkMdTtjhmcnBM/index.html defended this argument] by saying that corporations are composed of people.

{{Logical fallacies}}

[[Category:Logical fallacies]]

Three O paradox

2011-09-10T21:53:52Z

DukeTwicep: I removed Rdaley06's changes because I consider it to be vandalism. If you want to add something, first discuss the matter on the talk page of the article or in the forum.

The phrase "Three O Paradox" is probably a shorthand reference to the statement that a being cannot simultaneously be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

In this article, I will list a number of incompatible-properties arguments discussed by Theodore Drange in his article ‘Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey’. Drange discusses objections in his articles, so I advise anyone interested to read it. I will not discuss any of them here. In some cases, individual articles will discuss them more in-depth.

[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html]- The Drange article.

'''A. The Perfection vs. Creation Argument, Version 1 '''

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. A perfect being can have no needs or wants.

4. If any being created the universe, then he must have had some need or want.

5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).

6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

'''B. The Perfection vs. Creation Argument, Version 2 '''

1. If God exists, then he is perfect.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. If a being is perfect, then whatever he creates must be perfect.

4. But the universe is not perfect.

5. Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe (from 3 and 4).

6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

'''C. The Immutability vs. Creation Argument '''

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.

3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.

4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.

5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5)

'''D. The Immutability vs. Omniscience Argument '''

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is omniscient.

3. An immutable being cannot know different things at different times.

4. To be omniscient, a being would need to know propositions about the past and future.

5. But what is past and what is future keep changing.

6. Thus, in order to know propositions about the past and future, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 5).

7. It follows that, to be omniscient, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 4 and 6).

8. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be omniscient (from 3 and 7).

9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8).

'''E. The Immutable vs. All-Loving Argument '''

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is all-loving.

3. An immutable being cannot be affected by events.

4. To be all-loving, it must be possible for a being to be affected by events.

5. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be all-loving (from 3 and 4).

6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

'''F. The Transcendence vs. Omnipresence Argument '''

1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).

2. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.

3. To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.

4. To be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.

5. Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent (from 3 and 4).

Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

'''G. The Transcendence vs. Personhood Argument '''

1. If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e., outside space and time).

2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).

3. If something is transcendent, then it cannot exist and perform actions within time.

4. But a person (or personal being) must exist and perform actions within time.

5. Therefore, something that is transcendent cannot be a person (or personal being) (from 3 and 4).

6. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5).

'''H. The Nonphysical vs. Personal Argument '''

1. If God exists, then he is nonphysical.

2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).

3. A person (or personal being) needs to be physical.

4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).

'''I. The Omnipresence vs. Personhood Argument '''

1. If God exists, then he is omnipresent.

2. If God exists, then he is a person (or a personal being).

3. Whatever is omnipresent cannot be a person (or a personal being).

4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1-3).

'''J. The Omniscient vs. Free Argument '''

1. If God exists, then he is omniscient.

2. If God exists, then he is free.

3. An omniscient being must know exactly what actions he will and will not do in the future.

4. If one knows that he will do an action, then it is impossible for him not to do it, and if one knows that he will not do an action, then it is impossible for him to do it.

5. Thus, whatever an omniscient being does, he must do, and whatever he does not do, he cannot do (from 3 and 4).

6. To be free requires having options open, which means having the ability to act contrary to the way one actually acts.

7. So, if one is free, then he does not have to do what he actually does, and he is able to do things that he does not actually do (from 6).

8. Hence, it is impossible for an omniscient being to be free (from 5 and 7).

9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8).

'''K. The Justice vs. Mercy Argument '''

1. If God exists, then he is an all-just judge.

2. If God exists, then he is an all-merciful judge.

3. An all-just judge treats every offender with exactly the severity that he/she deserves.

4. An all-merciful judge treats every offender with less severity than he/she deserves.

5. It is impossible to treat an offender both with exactly the severity that he/she deserves and also with less severity than he/she deserves.

6. Hence, it is impossible for an all-just judge to be an all-merciful judge (from 3-5).

7. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 6).

Drange’s arguments are varied. Some of them only apply to the Christian god, some apply to all. Some are more soldly argued than others. Nevertheless, his collection was worthy of putting on our list simply because of its exhaustive nature.

See [[Omnipotence_and_omniscience_paradox]].
{{Arguments against god}}

Talk:Arguments against the existence of god

2011-09-08T23:30:06Z

DukeTwicep: added discussion and fixed one with no title

== Atrocities committed by Yahweh ==

I haven't found any section on this. I would say this is an argument against religion. I often, if not always, bring up some of the horrible things Yahweh is doing to people or force people to do to others. I don't think it's just an argument with an appeal to emotion, I think it's a clear sign that Yahweh is not good in any way. And I think this is, so far for me, the best counter-argument when apologetics try to dodge by basically throwing out the Old Testament and say that that was then, and this is now.
It's amazing how they can justify all the atrocities that the OT speaks about by just saying Yahweh changed his mind. Like that makes him more benevolent. Does anyone have any idea on where this article should be put if it were created? [[User:DukeTwicep|Duke]] 18:30, 8 September 2011 (CDT)

== Mentioning purpose ==

Shoudn't we mention the purpose of these arguments? Why do atheists argue God's non-existence and get involved in debates even when they are not challenged by believers? --Wissam hemadeh
:Go ahead. Keep these two things in mind:
:* A direct challenge by a believer is not the only thing that warrants a debate. Lobbying a political candidate for legal reform that would favour a particular religious belief is a challenge to debate that belief and the basis on which it stands.
:* Some people argue for entertainment :)
: --[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 14:44, 3 March 2010 (CST)

Where did all the arguments go? There was a long list of arguments on this page.--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 13:31, 27 June 2010 (CDT)

== Consider these arguments against God's existence ==

Ultimate 747 Gambit

Evolution

Modal Ontological Argument against God

Scientific Mistakes in Bible/qur'an

Immoralities in Bible/Qur'an

Transcendental argument for the non-existence of God

Kalam argument for atheists

argument from poor design

There are much more. I'll be getting at you some time soon. Anyway, some of these are found nn iron chariots wiki, just search. I don't know how to transfer them to this category.

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/

--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:09, 6 March 2010 (CST)

Also, an outstanding book to read by Michael Martin: Atheism: A Philosophical Justification

http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/672_reg_print.html

--[[User:Wissam hemadeh|wissam hemadeh]] 15:16, 6 March 2010 (CST)

== Universal Negatives ==

There are some issues under the heading "Aren't universal negatives impossible to prove?". Although it is true that they can be proven by showing that they contradict logic or are inherently meaningless concepts, the rest of the article is pretty well wrong. For example, the case give is the phlogiston. Although scientists have found something that does what a phlogiston was supposed to do, they have merely demonstrated a lack of both evidence and necessity for the phlogiston theory. Occams razor would therefore lead us to believe it does not exist. This, however, does NOT provide EVIDENCE that the phlogiston does not exist, nor does it prove that it does not exist. It merely demonstrates a LACK of evidence for the positive assertion, rather than providing evidence for the negative. Occam's razor, while being a valid tool when considering what position to take or what belief is most probable, does NOT constitute evidence; it instead operates on a lack of evidence.

Along the same lines, the argument that "This is how we can know that such things as the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, the Abimonable Snowman, etc. do not exist" is also fallacious. We do NOT know that such things do not exist and we have no evidence that they do not exist. All we have is a lack of evidence that they do exist. The fact that many instances have been shownn to be frauds does not operate as evidence for the assertion that they do not exist. The fact operates as a counter to positive evidence that they do exist, but cannot itself operate as evidence.

Suggested reading: Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

~~Jeremie Choquette, Physics Student at McMaster University

== Strong Atheism vs. Agnosticism Argument ==

Is this section regarding the existence of a particular God, or a man-made religion based God? Or is it refuting the entire possibility of a God?

The argument against agnosticism is flawed.

The Atheist Writer Claims: If one lacks understanding or is incapable of such high comprehension--as animals cannot put 2&2 together beyond their basic instincts as we humans can do--then how can they argue the original point in the first place--that there may or may not be a God?

My Agnostic Perspective: Because I know the gas tank either contains fuel, or does not--but unsure of which without checking the gauge, then which answer is defaulted? Neither until further variables are found (such as checking the gauge). At our current level of logical understanding, either a God exists, or a God does not; thus, without proof from either viewpoint, one cannot pick a side.

Also, consider the logical fallacy, Ad Ignorantium: "The absence of evidence is not evidence."

Consider also how people view strangers. A stranger is neither good, nor bad necessarily (merely assumed bad in pursuit of being safer than sorry). An agnostic stands neutral, claiming it is impossible to know whether a God exists or not based on the given circumstances. Further, science cannot directly prove, but only theorize on how the universe and life was created--which is not much better than faith given its position in the scientific method.

Atheist: No proof that God exists. This inhibits an open mind.

Agnostic: No proof that God ''doesn't'' exist*. Thus, the possibility is kept open.

*Given the findings based on science, it is not enough to convince me that the universe came into any existence based on any other particular means. While science may find an approach to the universe being created outside of the realm of time (stripping the "beginnings," and the "ends"), both intelligent design and scientific theories are all just that--theories.
--Lennybird

:Please sign your talk comments. The icon is second from the right, above the comment box.

:Your definitions of atheist and agnostic are mistaken. They are not part of a three-level system of belief (theism, agnosticism, atheism), they address different questions.
:* Theism/atheism addresses the question of belief.
:* Gnosticism/agnosticism addresses the question of knowledge.
:One need not necessarily claim knowledge that no gods exist to hold the belief that there are none. I think you'll find that most of us are stating our disbelief, not making a claim to knowledge.

::I apologize, but I'm not sure I understand you correctly. First, if atheists question belief, isn't atheism in itself a belief? Perhaps this is why I'm agnostic, but how can one formulate a belief or notion based on no claim or backing from knowledge--or evidence?

::Or are you saying that agnosticism and atheism are incomparable?
::--[[User:Lennybird|Lennybird]] 10:44, 4 August 2010 (CDT)

:::The second one. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. Maybe these tables will clear it up:
:::How it's being presented:
:::{| border="1"
|-
! colspan="2" | Do you believe?
|-
! Yes
| Theist
|-
! I don't know
| Agnostic
|-
! No
| Atheist
|}

:::But that is a sort of straw man made up by Christians. Theism and gnosticism are two separate questions:

:::{| border="1"
|-
! colspan="2" rowspan="2" |
! colspan="2" | Do you believe?
|-
! Yes
! Anything other than yes
|-
! rowspan="2" | Do you know?
! Yes
| Gnostic theist
| Gnostic atheist
|-
! Anything other than yes
| Agnostic theist
| Agnostic atheist
|}

:::So if someone asks "do you believe?", theism is when you say yes. Atheism isn't necessarily when you say no, it's when you don't say yes. And gnosticism is a different question.

:::To confuse the matter further, there are also levels of certainty in both belief and knowledge. "I don't believe in god" and "I believe there is no god" are two distinct positions of belief, but neither necessarily makes one a gnostic or agnostic. But I'm not going to go into that on this talk page - there's a whole article on it here somewhere.
:::--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 02:46, 17 August 2010 (CDT)

:I'd also like to respond to the quote...
:It's not true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Sure it is. It's not '''''proof''''' of absence, but it is '''''evidence'''''. I'll admit that it's fair to say that the absence of evidence alone is not sufficient justification to reject an idea. But you make it sound like that's all we have to go on, and that's simply not true.
:--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 23:50, 2 August 2010 (CDT)

::I can agree with that; absence of evidence is not proof of the absence, but absence of evidence is some degree of evidence based on our current knowledge. Couldn't one theorize that God just doesn't want to be found, and this could be entirely discredited as evidence? In any case, it's insufficient evidence alone. You mention that this isn't all we have to go on, what else is there? As far as I understand, atheists rely on the absence of evidence to justify their position, I haven't heard other arguments.

::Couldn't I merely say that there is an absence of evidence that God doesn't exist? I suppose we have to define what amount of evidence is substantial enough.
::--[[User:Lennybird|Lennybird]] 10:38, 4 August 2010 (CDT)

:::You could, but then I could say that there is an equally valid absence of evidence that Thor isn't real. If the same logic could apply to an infinite number of invented claims, we generally place the burden of proof on those who make the claim.

:::I don't want to write a ten-page article on a talk page about justifications for not believing. Plenty of others have done that - you just have to look. I hope you're okay with just a short list with no explanation:
:::* The consistent replacement of unjustified supernatural explanations about the operation of the natural world with observationally verified natural explanations.
:::* The lack of a specific description of any god's interaction with the natural world, other than those interactions which have been being consistently replaced with natural explanations.
:::* Religion's tendency to explain the world using the worst science available, along with the tendency of credulous believers to think it is the best science available.
:::* The evolution of supernatural explanations to fit with the changing zeitgeist. If any of it were true, supernatural explanations should not have to be adapted to suit peoples' changing beliefs.
:::* The failure of religion to improve its own understanding of the natural world.
:::* The failure, under the simplest scrutiny, of any sufficiently precise definition of a god.
:::* The geographical and societal positioning of various belief systems.
:::* The failure of believers to provide any justification for belief in '''their''' god. What they commonly claim as justification is a holy book which provides justification (albeit poor) for belief in a vastly different god from the one they believe in.
:::* The historical baggage associated with belief in any god.
::::E.g. By what right do you claim your god is the same god Moses worshiped, if the actions and opinions you attribute to your god are vastly different from those Moses wrote about his? If you claim the history as justification, then the difference between the historical beliefs and your beliefs do matter.
:::* The vested interest leaders of religions have, and have always had, in placating those paying their bills, as lacking as their answers to profound questions might be when placed under scrutiny.
:::I might add more to this list later, or provide clarification. But I don't have a lot of time.
:::--[[User:Jaban|Jaban]] 02:46, 17 August 2010 (CDT)

== Multiplicity of religions as an argument against god ==

This page opens with ''There are an infinite possible number of interpretations of the idea of "god" and even of religion. Over a thousand different denominations of Christianity alone, all with their different beliefs on who or what god is.''

I would propose this as itself a strong argument against any kind of interventionist god (not the deist's spectator god). Any religion that claims knowledge of a god that hears prayer or has any interest in human behavior, must explain how it is that at least 2/3 of the world's population believes in a radically different description of god or gods. Any religion founded on a revealed text, must explain how it is that at least 2/3 of the world finds their text irrelevant and honors a different one.

The fraction 2/3 is based on (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html), where all types of christianity are amalgamated into one block at 33% of the world. In fact this is wrong as it includes the LDS, who have a different scripture (the book of mormon) from christians, and several other sects (christian science, adventists) who are only barely christian. Most religions need to explain why 3/4 to 90% of the world conceive a different idea of god or see god(s) as having a quite different relationship to man.

The intro to this page says, "Surely it would be impossible to rule them all out," but in fact, this is a powerful argument against the truth of ''any'' god-belief. The many religions rule each other out by their existence.

Perhaps these facts could best be integrated into the "Argument from nonbelief" page?

User talk:David Cortesi

2011-09-08T22:33:42Z

DukeTwicep:

Hello David, and welcome to the iron chariots wiki. I noticed you added some content on a discussion page. Please, sign your edits on discussion/talk pages using quadruple tilde signs or clicking the signature button, it helps a lot. That is all. Enjoy your stay. [[User:DukeTwicep|Duke]] 17:33, 8 September 2011 (CDT)

User:DukeTwicep

2011-09-08T00:26:57Z

DukeTwicep:

I'm from Sweden. 23 years old, 24 this October (2011). I'm an antitheist, atheist, agnostic, etc.. I believe that the world would be much better off without religion, or any sort of superstition. I believe that atheism should be promoted to the fullest to make people understand that atheists are not evil or immoral (or any of that crap). People need to understand that religion is the root of all evil, and rationality is the fire that turns those roots into charcoal.

I'm a self-proclaimed philosopher since 7 or 8 years back. What I'm most proud of is that I've thought up the same philosophic arguments/ideas of past philosophers without even reading about them (the anthropic principle was quite obvious to me), but I'm sure a lot of people have done so. Still... that's pretty cool. I've been an atheist the same amount of time.

I was brought up as a protestant Christian, went to church, camps and all that. A lot of summer camps, I guess it was mostly fun because of the social factors.

My parents gave us all a light-weight version of Christianity, so they didn't force me to do anything, but I mean -- if you're brought up only with the idea that there is a god, then you will without a doubt continue to believe so, no matter how intelligent you are. And so it wasn't really until my life came crashing down that I questioned it, and everything before that is like a haze to me now. It's almost like I was only partially conscious until I questioned my beliefs. And since that I've always believed that the best cure for religiosity is a life-shattering event, something to send you into reality where you belong.

The first thing I noticed about not believing in a god was the partial relief that no one is constantly looking at you, no matter what you do, and judging you. I say partial because I think there is some part of me that can't get rid of the fear. The same part that still holds the fear of going to hell, and when it shows itself I have to constantly remind myself with rational arguments that there is no heaven and hell, that when I die I will finally be in peace, I will finally not have to care or fear anything. That's a big relief. So death is not something I fear, and many times I've welcomed it, but it has refused to visit me thus far. Of course, a religious person would hold this against me, he or she would say that I'm depressed because I have left my faith or something like that. It's just that the depression came Before I lost my faith, so it doesn't really connect. And the fact that I'm an atheist has nothing to do with my inclination toward nihilism, but that's not something the mind of a religious person could fathom. My nihilistic tendencies has more to do with the fact that I can't recall smells, tastes, sounds, touch, feelings or even most things I've seen (I just recognize them), so I'm pretty much living in the moment all the time, and I don't have any dreams of the future. That makes life feel kind of meaningless most of the time when I'm not occupied by something entertaining. And now I'm going to do just that -- entertain myself that is.

User:DukeTwicep

2011-09-08T00:17:56Z

DukeTwicep:

I'm from Sweden. 23 years old, 24 this October (2011). I'm an antitheist, atheist, agnostic, etc.. I believe that the world would be much better off without religion, or any sort of superstition. I believe that atheism should be promoted to the fullest to make people understand that atheists are not evil or immoral (or any of that crap). People need to understand that religion is the root of all evil, and rationality is the fire that turns those roots into charcoal.
I'm a self-proclaimed philosopher since 7 or 8 years back. What I'm most proud of is that I've thought up the same philosophic arguments/ideas of past philosophers without even reading about them (the anthropic principle was quite obvious to me), but I'm sure a lot of people have done so. Still... that's pretty cool. I've been an atheist the same amount of time.
I was brought up as a protestant Christian, went to church, camps and all that. A lot of summer camps, I guess it was mostly fun because of the social factors.
My parents gave us all a light-weight version of Christianity, so they didn't force me to do anything, but I mean -- if you're brought up only with the idea that there is a god, then you will without a doubt continue to believe so, no matter how intelligent you are. And so it wasn't really until my life came crashing down that I questioned it, and everything before that is like a haze to me now. It's almost like I was only partially conscious until I questioned my beliefs. And since that I've always believed that the best cure for religiosity is a life-shattering event, something to send you into reality where you belong.
The first thing I noticed about not believing in a god was the partial relief that no one is constantly looking at you, no matter what you do, and judging you. I say partial because I think there is some part of me that can't get rid of the fear. The same part that still holds the fear of going to hell, and when it shows itself I have to constantly remind myself with rational arguments that there is no heaven and hell, that when I die I will finally be in peace, I will finally not have to care or fear anything. That's a big relief. So death is not something I fear, and many times I've welcomed it, but it has refused to visit me thus far. Of course, a religious person would hold this against me, he or she would say that I'm depressed because I have left my faith or something like that. It's just that the depression came Before I lost my faith, so it doesn't really connect. And the fact that I'm an atheist has nothing to do with my inclination toward nihilism, but that's not something the mind of a religious person could fathom. My nihilistic tendencies has more to do with the fact that I can't recall smells, tastes, sounds, touch, feelings or even most things I've seen (I just recognize them), so I'm pretty much living in the moment all the time, and I don't have any dreams of the future. That makes life feel kind of meaningless most of the time when I'm not occupied by something entertaining. And now I'm going to do just that -- entertain myself that is.

Talk:Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics

2011-09-07T23:27:52Z

DukeTwicep: /* Faith is a virtue */

==Faith is a virtue==
Just wondering whether the unmade article 'faith is a virtue' should be the list its in, if any. -- [[User:Daemonowner|Daemonowner]]

I have a proposition for another common objection. The idea that religion is the basis of morality, and that society would somehow crumble if religion were abolished. I haven't seen it anywhere else on the wiki. [[User:DukeTwicep|Duke]] 18:27, 7 September 2011 (CDT)

What about all the good things religion has given us?

2011-09-07T23:22:57Z

DukeTwicep: /* Dodging the issue */ Atheists are not religious + added some more info

{{argument-stub}}
Religious [[apologist]]s often argue that [[religion]] does good; that religious people and institutions help the needy, or created great works of art or science; therefore, religion is a good thing.

== Examples ==
William Donohue, head of the Catholic League, [http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1879 writes]:
{{Quote|It was the Catholic Church that created the first universities, and it was the Catholic Church that played a central role in the Scientific Revolution}}

Arthur C. Brooks, at Stanford's Hoover Institution, [http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html writes]:
{{Quote|The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.}}

== Counter-apologetics ==
=== What is the argument? ===
Assuming for the sake of argument that religious beliefs cause people to be better, this does not imply that those beliefs are true.

In other words, "religion gives us good things, therefore religion is good" is an argument for the usefulness of religion, not its truth.

=== What is the causality? ===
Is there something about religion that causes people to do good things? Or are the good things attributed to religion due to some other cause?

For instance, in a community that is 75% Catholic, one would expect about 75% of all good deeds to be done by Catholics, all else being equal.

=== Is religion, on balance, a good thing? ===
Religious institutions also often do bad things, such as opposing the teaching of [[evolution]] in schools or promoting the spread of AIDS by denigrating the use of condoms. Therefore, we must ask ourselves whether, on balance, religion is a good thing or not.

=== Is religious charity selfless? ===
One must remember that when a religious person does charity, they may be doing this for a reward, such as [[heaven]], if applicable to the religion in question. Many people act out on the word of God, to impress God. Many are not doing these good deeds out of the kindness of their heart, but for eternity in heaven.

=== Dodging the issue ===
If brought up with reference to Atheism, this response may be a dodge. Atheists may just as well do good, so as an argument against atheism it misses relevancy.

This is part of the common misconception that: Atheism has bearings on topics other than the lack of belief in deities. And at the same time the misconception that: without religion, there can be no moral standards.
Thus, the apologist who responds with this dodge probably believes that the Atheist cannot have moral standards as he/she has no religion.

Furthermore Atheism is not equivalent to lack of morality. Although religion may promote morality, it is fallible to say that therefore Atheism promotes lack of morality. Morality is an issue of the individual not of an institution, thus Atheists and Theists have the same capacity of being moral or immoral as they both choose which morals to include in their lives.

The idea that morality is originally based on religion is frequently heard from apologists in debates and conversations. Some of the reasons for this belief can be that,
* one cannot imagine a world without religion
* one imagines the world to be barbaric without his/hers religion (Indians, Vikings, etc. Essentially societies that one believes were barbaric)
* the scripture speaks a lot of morals and laws, and one assumes that the world must have been without morals and laws before the scripture
* animals cannot read, and they act like animals

The reality is that morality is intrinsic to animals. Charles Darwin refers to this as altruism. Morality is basically a product of natural selection, and homo sapiens is far from the only species to exhibit this behaviour that we have labelled as "goodness".

It's also important to note the difference between ethics (more universal views of what is right or wrong - developed namely through cultural evolution) and morality (culturally-based views of what is right or wrong). Morals are not always ethical, and it is quite arguable that many religious morals are anything but ethical.

[[Category:Arguments]]
[[Category:Arguments for belief]]
[[Category:Non-arguments for the existence of God]]