The foundation of morality, reason.


Dawkins makes a staggering number of mistakes in this argument.

First, he doesn’t actually answer the question that he’s asked. He is asked about how it is that an atheist would establish a framework within which to decide between right and wrong without believing in any sort of divine moral law giver who can bring rational basis to concepts of right and wrong.

Instead of answering that, Dawkins simply critiqued the specific moral lawS that certain religions have apparently suggested, and said that our modern ones are superior. But he has failed to give any rational account of what makes something right or wrong. By saying that modern morality is superior to ancient morality, he presupposed the very thing he was asked to prove – that there is such a thing as right and wrong. He was asked a metaethics question, and provided a normative ethics answer. It wins applause. But that’s it.

The other main one is that he doesn’t seem to understand what absolute morality really means. He says that because the specific religious moral laws are unsatisfactory, he doesn’t want absolute morality. He seems to think that absolute morality means a moral law that you are not allowed to question and reason about. And if that was what was meant by ‘absolute morality’, I think I wouldn’t want it either. But that is not what absolute morality means – not when philosophers talk about it, and I highly doubt it was what the questioner meant by it.

Absolute morality simply means that there is an absolute truth (not relative truth) as to whether something is right or wrong. It means that you can reason and debate about it as much as you want, but in the end there IS a truth about whether or not it is wrong to rape someone; that the truth about it is not relative to people’s opinions. It is this type of moral reality that he was asked to give an atheist’s rational account for. Instead he presumed this type of morality exists in order to blast religious people.

I find it strange that he would do this considering that I’m pretty sure, on other occasions, he has admitted that there is no rational basis for morality under atheism.

This is some pretty dodgy rhetoric on Dawkins’ party I must say.

Conversations with “Friendly Atheist” (Part 2)

If you take the “delusion” part from my argument it will still hold. The fact that you did not even try to show what is the difference between belief in god and belief in unicorns just understates my point.The fact that no one has tried to convince you of the existence of unicorns (or Zeus or Osiris) is owed to the fact that the majority of people today have been indoctrinated since birth to believe in the monoteistic god of the middle east. Not because there is any difference between them. They both have the same degree of verifiable evidence, ZERO. And you know it. I’ve heard apologists who notably exceed the likes of you and some of them realize openly that there is no evidence for god. They just have faith, which it is nothing more than asserting belief while lacking evidence.Convincing me that an invisible being exists will not make such a being real my friend. I am irrelevant, don’t give me so much credit. I don’t do it myself so why would you? The whole arrogance canard is so old and tiresome. It has been well said:”Religious people often accuse atheists of being arrogant and of placing ourselves in the position of God, but really it is the theist who has all the vanity. He can’t stand to think that he will ever cease to exist. As Freud said, Christianity is the most egotistical of the religions. It is based on the premise ‘Jesus saves me.’”If you actually have a passion for truth I suggest you try to look at belief in god from an outsiders perspective. Put belief in god to the test and see what happens. I was a true believer for over 25 years. When one has a passion for truth it is never to late to reconsider one’s positions and beliefs. To live according to reality and not some bronze age myths.In reason:-FA

Dude, if you read back on your message, you should notice that you haven’t actually offered me any arguments that refute what I’ve said. To me it looks like you’ve really just asserted your disagreement with me without much backing.

I’m not trying to convince you of a very revolutionary proposition.

“there is some evidence for God”

It’s really won’t harm you atheistic beliefs if you accept this idea. There is SOME evidence for the flatness of the Earth just as there is (a lot more) evidence for the sphericality of the Earth.

There is some evidence for string theory just as there is some evidence against string theory.

The fact that I didn’t even try to show you the difference between God and unicorns is a testament to the fact that I don’t think you’ll be hearing anything new. You’ve been told time and time again why God and unicorns are a fundamentally different things, and why there is much more evidence for God than for unicorns; I just don’t think you’re paying attention.

Your problem is probably that you think science is the only valid type of evidence. It’s a very common misconception that I see a lot in scientists (and interestingly a staggering number of atheists). But reason and rationality are so much more all encompassing than just science. You can’t forget the role of history and philosophy when your searching for any truth. Science is important but if it were the only thing that brought knowledge we wouldn’t know very much at all, and what we had would be quite shallow knowledge.

Most of the arguments for the existence of God employ the disciplines of philosophy or history, very little of them employ science. That’s because science is a study of the laws of nature. It’s main objective is to predict the ways the universe will behave under certain conditions. It’s objective is NOT to tell us what happened in the past in society, and certainly not to tell us what exists in the supernatural. But history and philosophy do do these things.

Basically my point is, arguments have been made for the existence of God. You’ve heard them. And while you don’t like them, and you’re not convinced by them, many extremely intelligent and sane people are convinced by them. And the fact that any arguments have been made that have convinced anyone means that there is SOME evidence for the existence of God – however good or bad that evidence is. The question is NOT whether or not there is any evidence for God, the question is how much of it there is and whether or not it outweighs the evidence for the alternative.

Now, any apologist who tells you that there is no evidence for God doesn’t sound like much of an apologist to me. The definition of an apologist really is someone who provides a defence of their faith by the employment of reason. As the Bible says in 1 Peter 3:15, Christians should be prepared to give anyone a REASON for the hope we have. Now, keep in mind that you are NOT a Christian, and thus are in no position to tell me what I mean when I use the word faith. I assure you that I don’t know a single Christian (and I go to a big church) who considers it virtuous to believe something without evidence. Not one. The Bible, as I have told you in the past, uses faith in a way which means something much closer to “trusting in the truth that you have come to believe in (by reason)”.

See, if I my faith in God meant my belief in him without any evidence, then it would be impossible to give you any reason for the hope I have in Jesus (which the Bible commands me to give to you). Faith, by your definition, has no engagement in the realms of reason at all. It is completely detached from whatever evidence there is. But a real Christian apologist will tell you that they have reasons for what they believe. If they really believed, as you say, that they believed in God “on blind faith” then they would not be in the business of trying to convince you by reason that God is real. They would have nothing to tell you but the mere fact that they believe in God. Yet instead we sit here and we employ our reasoning skills to try to communicate and engage with you through some medium by which people come to believe and disbelieve things.

Really, it just wouldn’t make any sense for you to assert that there is not a shred of evidence for God. If you do that you’d have to actually disarm the arguments I’ve given you somehow – that is ideal procedure for rational discourse – rather than simply assert that I’m wrong because of my cultural conditioning. It would probably need to involve you telling me what you think evidence is (because in order to say there is no evidence for God, I’d say you need a very narrow conception of evidence).

If you really want me to tell you why belief in God is different to belief in unicorns then I’ll go into that. But I’m not currently convinced that you need to be shown.

And you can trust me, I’ve put my belief in God thoroughly to the test, but like it or not, it’s just resulted in a stronger, much more rationally fuelled belief. I believe that’s because it is the truth.

Conversations with “Friendly Atheist” (Part 1)


When atheists grow out of likening God to unicorns, believers will start listening. Until then, they are only reaching an audience of themselves.

When believers actually explain why belief in god is any different from belief in unicorns, atheist will stop using the argument. Only kids reject a position because they find it distasteful. Just because they don’t like the comparison does not mean it is not true or accurate. Until believers can show there is a difference they will continue to waddle in the uncomfortableness of their own delusions.
In reason:


See, Mr Atheist, to a whole lot of other atheists, you’ve made me appear an idiot. Nicely done. And that’s a commendable number of reblogs.

But to any experienced Christian, you shown to us that, like so many atheists, you’re just not listening: just because you have not been convinced, doesn’t mean we haven’t given you arguments. That’s because YOU are not the final judge of truth.

Just because an argument doesn’t convince YOU, doesn’t mean that anybody who is convinced by it is deluded – the negation of which is basically your entire foundational premise your whole “unicorn” argument. Because if you actually pay attention, and honestly listen to a serious Christian apologist as he talks to you, you will hear arguments that actually appeal to reason, while no-one has ever even attempted to convince me, at least, of the existence of unicorns.

See, I am a Christian. And, make no mistake, I do find atheism to be an absurd world-view that is riddled with holes and shortcomings. But despite my disagreement, and despite the fact that atheistic arguments have failed to convince me, I can (though sometimes with difficulty) understand how they might convince some people; even intelligent people.

But lately I am continuously plagued by atheists around the world, on the internet or in literature, who are spreading this gigantic myth – that there is NO evidence for God, that only a deluded person could believe in God. This is arrogant, wilfully ignorant, and narrow-minded down to the core. Seriously, it is one of the greatest travesties of human intellect I’ve ever seen hit the bookshelves, yet it is astonishingly widespread.

See, there does exist a class of atheists who notably exceed the likes of you and Dawkins in intelligence and academic achievement. I’ve met some of these, and they’re the kind who hear Dawkins say “there isn’t a shred of evidence for the existence of God” and feel embarrassed to call themselves atheists. These are the atheists who have managed to understand that this topic has not been settled, that the top scholars of the world are still disputing the existence of God, and that there are at least decent arguments for both sides – none of which are conclusive!

I’m not going to list the arguments that demonstrate the difference between belief that we have a creator, and belief that there are flying horses with horns. That’s not my purpose here, because these arguments have already been made, and you know they have. You just seem think that their inability to convince YOU disqualifies them as arguments of any merit. That’s a mindset that requires tremendous intellectual arrogance – and that is not just an attempted put-down; only say it because I honestly and regretfully believe it.

I just want to challenge you to consider carefully what I have said. I’m not trying to battle you with arguments so there’s no point in trying to battle me. I just, like you, have a passion for the Truth.

Friendly Atheist: When atheists grow out of likening God to unicorns, believers will…