Sample clip of my debate with an
atheist on the issue of morality.
Find the whole debate at this link

Arguments That Atheists Should Not Use

This is a succinct list of argument that atheists should not use. Some of these arguments have faulty premises.
That is to say that the following should not logically develop beyond their fallacious or simply missing foundations. Some are simply contradictory when taken to their logical conclusion.
Some, I will comment on from perspective of a generic theistic worldview and others from a specifically Judeo-Christian one.

God cannot exist because evil exists.
Unless the atheist can provide an absolute definition of "good," they cannot complain about "evil." And this does not mean simply being able to invent a definition but it means evidencing the what, when, where, why and how of good and evil in an atheistic universe: what, when, where, why and how does a blind, unconscious, non-volitional, amoral concoction of laws, energy and chemicals produce morality, or ethics, that are enjoined upon us.
The atheist must understand that in order to complain about evil they must contrast evil against an absolute good hence, an absolute moral/ethical code or law. This logically implies a moral code/law giver, which the atheist does not accept. Nature “cares” not for good, evil, morality/ethics but “cares” only for survival (this was pointed out during my debate with an atheist on the issue of morality). The conjure as to evolution being the moral law/code giver fails for various reasons including lack of evidence and arbitrariness.

dan barker, charles darwin, morality, ethics.jpg

Thus, the atheist wants it both ways: they want to appeal to an absolute moral law that will allow them to besmirch YHVH's character but they cannot admit that the moral law has come from YHVH. Unless the atheist can evidence that a good God would not allow evil, they cannot define God out of existence for this reason. Also, unless the atheist can evidence that YHVH is not doing anything about evil, they cannot besmirch His character for a perceived lack of action. The reason that atheists besmirch the character of YHVH, as presented in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, is because they judge that character against their own theistic concepts.
The Bible has taught about this subject since long before any atheist made the argument. And yet, atheists still make this argument, even though the answer has been available for millennia.
Simply stated: God did not create evil but did allow it to be produced by our freewill. In order to ultimately rectify evil God paid the price and offers us eternal salvation.

God's existence is irrelevant because I am a good person without believing in God.
Just as stated above, the atheist must provide an absolute definition of "good" in order to claim that they are just that. In order to substantiate their claims of being good the atheist will generally end up, subconsciously, appealing to the morals/ethics of the Judeo-Christianity. They will state "I don't steal, murder, lie, and I help people," etc.
To an atheist being "good" may be besmirching theists at every possible opportunity. It may mean putting down and bickering with co-workers, friends and family members about theism. It may mean telling theists that they are ignorant, superstitious and unable to think. It may also be loving their neighbours and caring for their families.

God cannot exist, or cannot be good/loving, because suffering exists.
Unless the atheist can evidence that a good God would not allow suffering, they cannot define God out of existence for this reason. Unless the atheist can evidence that there is no purpose to suffering they cannot besmirch God's nature for allowing, or causing it.
This argument contradicts the non-theistic evolutionary concept held by atheists in general. This concept is the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
According to, the logical conclusion, of this view evil and suffering are good because their grease the wheels of evolution by both, ridding us of the less fit and preserving the fittest

God cannot exist because humans invented the idea of God.
Unless the atheists can evidence that humans invented the idea of God, they cannot claim that God does not exist for this reason.
To make this argument is to commit the genetic fallacy, or ad hominem, it is to attack the person making the argument, the argument’s source, instead of offering a viable counter argument.

It would be saying that God (the argument) cannot exist because humans (the postulators) invented the argument. Maybe God exists and put it into the mind of humankind to conceive of Him.

God cannot exist because no one has ever had an experience with God.
Unless the atheists can evidence that no one has ever had an experience with God, they cannot claim that no one has ever had an experience with God.
Unless every claim of an experience with God has been thoroughly investigated and determined to be fictitious (fraud, hallucination, deception, etc.), they cannot make this claim.
This argument is based on atheism's presupposition, their a priori commitment to atheism. Atheism's circular logic states that since God does not exist, no one has ever had an experience with God. There are no credible experiences with God because God does not exist. God must not exist because no one has ever had an experience with God.

God cannot exist because bad things happen to good people.
As above: unless the atheists can offer an absolute standard of "good" and "bad," they cannot define God out of existence by citing good and bad.
The atheist must also provide absolute standards as to why God could not exist for the stated reasons. I.e., they must therefore demonstrate why God's goodness would not allow bad things to happen to good people. Moreover, they must evidence that good cannot come out of bad. They must offer reasons why bad things ought not happen to good people.
If God cannot exist because bad things happen to good people what are we to conclude when considering the fact that good things happen to bad people?

If God existed God could simply make a personal appearance and end all arguments.
Unless the atheists can evidence that God's appearance would end all argument regarding His existence, they cannot make this claim.

In fact, even if God personally appeared to every individual or Earth it would change nothing. Even if God appeared to every atheist on Earth they could still argue that it was a hallucination of some sort, technology based manipulation by aliens or the Illuminati (or, who knows what) and that thus, it never happened.

Recommended essay:
What Would Atheists Do If God Appeared To Them?

The supernatural cannot exist because we can only gain knowledge of real things through our senses.
Unless the atheists can evidence that we can only gain knowledge through our senses, they cannot argue in this manner. This argument is based on a belief in absolute materialism, which has not been evidenced.

People believe in God because their parents raised them to do so.
Unless the atheists can evidence that people believe in God because their parent raised them to do so, they cannot make this argument. This argument is also contradictory since there are atheists who raise their children to be atheists.

Atheism, bus ads, children, apologetics, American atheists, internet infidels, don't label me, , true freethinker.jpg

Moreover, this argument denies that many believers believe due to a lifelong pursuit of truth. This is just another generic argument / ad hominem: parents teach their children about God therefore, God does not exist. This is as fallacious as claiming that since parents teach their children that 2+2=4 therefore, 2+2 for not =4.

Recommended essays:
Natural Born Atheist
Atheist Child Rearing

God cannot exist because religion breeds violence and intolerance.
Unless the atheists can evidence that it is religion that causes violence and intolerance, they cannot use this argument (this is not even to deny that “religion” does so).
This argument ignores that violence and intolerance are caused by religion, politics, territory, atheism, material goods/resources, racism, sexism, wealth and poverty, science, atheism, etc., etc.

Communism, atheism, imagine no religion, true freethinker...jpg

Since there are various reasons for violence and intolerance religion cannot be excluded as the only, nor the main, cause. Whenever anyone gets in power, regardless of what they believe, or claim to believe, they tend to abuse their position. Since atheists have likewise done this, their argument is hypocritical.
The Encyclopedia of Wars (New York: Facts on File, 2005) was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars.
The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD.
From over 10,000 years of war 123 wars, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars.

Christians are intolerant.
Unless the atheists can provide an absolute standard of tolerance, they cannot claim that Christians are intolerant. If atheists do not tolerate those whom they consider intolerant then they themselves are not tolerant.
Intolerance comes in many forms such as political intolerance, religious intolerance, lactose intolerance, spousal abuse intolerance, etc.

Recommended essay:
Christians Are Jerks, Therefore, God Does Not Exist

It is arrogant to believe in absolutes / there are no absolutes / there is no absolute truth.
Unless the atheist can provide an absolute standard by which believing in absolutes is arrogant, they cannot make this argument.
Of course, if they provide such an absolute standard they would be defeating their own argument. This is, in fact, a self-defeating argument since it presupposes absolutes. To state that there are no absolutes is to make an absolute claim. To claim that there is no absolute truth is to claim that it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth.

All things are relative.
Playing off of the above: unless the atheists can evidence that all things are relative, they cannot make this claim.
This argument is hypocritical because the relativist is absolutely certain that relativism is absolutely true. Relativism is not a viable worldview, some people claim that they are relativists but they are not. They believe that relativism is true and that any other worldview is wrong-black and white, and no grayscale. The bottom line is that if all things really are relative then the very statement "all things are relative" is a relative statement and thus, ultimately meaningless.

It is arrogant to claim only one way of salvation.
Unless the atheists can offer a numerical figure as to how many ways of salvation would free Christianity (and many other theistic systems) from the realm of arrogance, they cannot refer to the offer of one way of salvation as arrogant.
This argument comes to us from a worldview that offers zero ways of salvation.
Surely, an atheist would argue that salvation is not required for anyone since there is no such thing as sin. But even if they can, momentarily, grant a need for salvation would they accept that one way is to become a terrorist bomber? No, they would instantly become exclusivists.
Moreover, this proves the utter depravity of humanity: that we learn that there is, in fact, indeed, a way of salvation and we say, “Oh, yeah? Not enough!” Nay, we want to sing that, horrible, old Frank Sinatra song, “I did it my way.”

It is arrogant to claim that one is right and everyone else is wrong.
Unless the atheists can provide an absolute standard by which claiming this sort of uniqueness is arrogant, they should not make this argument.
This argument comes to us from a worldview that believes that all the theists, regardless of chronology, geography, or theology, have been 100% wrong. According to atheism they are right and all theists are wrong.
One time atheist, and later Christian scholar, C. S. Lewis wrote:

If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake.
If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.1

It is arrogant to tell people that they are wrong.
Playing off of the point made above: unless the atheists can provide an absolute standard by which telling people that they are wrong is arrogant, they cannot make this claim.
But what happens if someone is wrong? And are atheists telling us that some people are wrong for telling other people that they are wrong? They would then be wrong for telling people that they are wrong to tell other people that they are wrong.

It is arrogant to push one's beliefs down someone else's throat.
Unless the atheists can provide an absolute standard by which it is arrogant to push one's beliefs down someone else's throat, they cannot make use this argument. They must also offer absolute guidelines by which to determine when a person really is pushing their beliefs down someone else's throat.
This argument is hypocritical because the atheists hold to a belief that it is wrong to push one's beliefs down someone else's throat and they push this belief down everyone else's throats.

It is arrogant to claim to know what happens after we die.
Unless the atheists can provide an absolute standard by which it is arrogant to claim to know what happens after we die, they cannot make a viable argument.
Atheism is hypocritical in making this argument since atheists themselves claim to know what happens after we die. They hold to a faith based dogmatic belief in annihilation. Moreover, if I said that I did not know something it would not mean, nor evidence, that no one knows it.
Atheism's view of annihilation also demonstrates the utter lack of justice in their worldview. According to atheism the only justice to be had is by human laws and courts. If you can avoid getting caught (or, bribe your way out) you can literally get away with anything. In the atheist view Hitler lived a wonderful life (in a manner of speaking): he enjoyed his power, had thousands of loyal followers, and when the Reich was coming apart around him, he chose when to take his own life-period, that is all.
In fact, in the atheist view Mother Theresa and Hitler ended up the same way-no heaven, no hell, no reward, no punishment, no glory, no justice. One left hope and inspiration, the other horror and despair and in the end, they simply came to an end-nihil.
Note this interesting statement by Unitarian Universalists, "Unitarian Universalists do not believe in Heaven or Hell as happy or evil places where people go when they die depending on how they have lived. We believe that no one can know what happens to us when we die."2 Well, which is it? First they say heaven and hell are not places people go when they die and then they say that no one can know what happens when we die.

Ockam's Razor defines God right out of existence as an unnecessary being.
Unless the atheists can evidence that it is God that is the unnecessary being, the complexity in the equation, they cannot argue thusly.
What atheist's fail to consider is that Ockham's Razor cuts both ways. Since they hold to a dogmatic faith based belief in materialism they believe in the beginning energy/matter. Thus, any addition to this matter, such as a spiritual being, is an unnecessary complexity. Judeo-Christianity believes in the beginning God. Thus, beginning with God, as is logically feasible, materialism becomes that unnecessary complexity.
The bottom line is that Ockham's Razor is merely a dictum and offers no methodology whereby to actually discern between two theories.

Recommended essays:
Ockham's Razor Cuts Both Ways
Firmly By The Blade

Christians do good deeds for fear of God thus, Only atheists have pure motives.
Unless the atheists can evidence that Christians do good deeds for fear of God and do not have pure motives, they cannot use this argument.
Unless the atheist can read the minds, and determine the motivations of, Christians they are being maliciously judgmental in making such a claim. Moreover, the Bible makes it very clear that good deeds are to be done because there are people who need good deeds done for them, we are not to do good just to be noticed, we are not to do good only to those who do good to us, etc., etc. That YHVH will reward us is besides the point: our motivation is to be to help others.
This is just a plain old bad argument to make to Christians since the Bible does not teach a works based salvation. Moreover, an atheist may do good deeds for recognition, in order to get something back, etc., etc.

God cannot exist because the world religions disagree on God's nature.
This is a faulty premise. Let us offer an example: we ask one thousand people to give us the sum of 2+2. Each of the one thousand gives us a different answer; one of them tells us that the answer is 4. What do we conclude? All of them are wrong, because they all disagree? No one can ever know the answer, because they all disagree? There is no correct answer, because they all disagree? Or, is one of them is right and the others wrong?
The blind men groping around offering different opinions as to what the elephant is are just that, blind men who are ignorant of the facts. But we can clearly see that they are dealing with an elephant and we can see that they are wrong in their various opinions.
This is because truth is objective and absolute. Something is true whether we like it or not, whether we would prefer that it be different or not, whether we agree with it or not.
The fact is that one worldview is right and all of the others are wrong. Moreover, this argument exposes atheism's hypocrisy since we could ask: "How could atheism be true considering that fact that there are various sects within atheism?"

Recommended essays:
Atheism's Sects

It is ignorant and superstitious to believe in God.
Again, without absolute standards this is an unviable argument. Apparently, we are to believe that:
It is ignorant and superstitious to believe in God, but intellectual and scientifically enlightened to believe that there is no God.
It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God created everything out of nothing, but intellectual and scientifically enlightened to believe that nothing made everything out of nothing.
It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God is uncaused, but intellectual and scientifically enlightened to believe that the universe is uncaused.
It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God created humans, but intellectual and scientifically enlightened to believe that humans spontaneously evolved from chemical pools that lead to modern man.
If God created the universe, who created God?
The universe is the uncaused first cause.
Etc., etc., etc.

Theists believe in God in order to fill the gaps in their knowledge.
Even if we grant that theists use the concept of God to fill the gaps in their knowledge we must note that atheists do the very same thing. They fill the gaps in their knowledge with the time of the gaps, the random chance of the gaps, the materialism of the gaps, (their own brand of) “faith” of the gaps, etc.

Recommended essays:
The Gap Filler

America's Founding Fathers were…
It is difficult to know how to finish this sentence/argument since it demonstrates a contradiction in atheism's besmirching of Christianity.
On the one hand, when considering the freedoms that America offers (such as the freedom to establish organizations whose goal is to besmirch theism) they claim that the Founding Fathers were not Christians but were deists. On the other hand, when the issue is the Founding Father's exploitation of the Natives and enslavement of Africans, atheist will claim that they were fundamentalist Bible believing orthodox Christians who evidence that Christianity is violent and oppressive.

Atheism is not linked to Communism but Christianity is linked to Nazism.
This is an argument that shocks us with a demonstration of atheism's malicious ability to pray upon ignorance and exploit baseless emotive charges. At a certain point atheists who blame violence and oppression on theism find out that since atheists have done the very same things, they are disqualified from making such charges.
Under the reign of atheists, particularly in the form of Communism, the world has experienced violence, oppression, starvation, and mass slaughter the like of which no theistic system has ever perpetrated. Faced with this clear contradiction, and faced with the dismantling of their "religion equals violence" argument, atheists seek to rewrite history and claim that atheism is not linked to Communism. This, of course, can be instantly discredited by the most cursory reading of any text written by Communists.
Now to the charge that Hitler was a Christian, or more precisely, a Roman Catholic and thus, that Nazism is to be blamed on Christianity. Simply stated, Hitler may have been baptized as a Catholic, may have, at adventitious times referred to himself as such, may have been considered as such by "church" leadership. However, Jesus taught that we could know His followers by their fruits, Hitler's fruits evidence that he was not a Christian.
Moishe Rosen has made the following observation, "Anyone who gives credence to such an accusation bestows upon Hitler the power to change theology.'"3

nazism, adolf hitler, swastika, communism, true freethinker.jpg

While one could never justify the Holocaust by appealing to the Bible/Christianity one could never condemn Hitler's brutality by appealing to atheism. It is the Bible's/Christianity's very own morals that condemn the Holocaust's brutality. By accusing Hitler of wrongdoing the atheist is presupposing a moral absolute, one that they must borrow from the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Evil done in Christianity's name does not evidence the evil of Christianity, since no such evil can rightly be claimed as being prescribed in its orthodox teachings, nor did its founder or apostles engage in such actions, but it does evidence human evil.
Karl Schleunes wrote, "Darwin's notion of struggle for survival was quickly appropriated by the racist…such a struggle, legitimized by the latest scientific views, justified the racists' conception of superior and inferior peoples…and validated the conflict between them."4

1. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1960), p. 29
2. Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Kamloops, Question and Answers about Unitarian Universalism
3. Complied by Eliyah Gould, Rich Robinson and Ruth Rosen, The Y'shua Challenge. Answers for those who say Jews can't believe in Jesus (A Purple Pomegranate Booklet, Purple Pomegranate Productions. San Francisco, California), p. 21. Quoting Moishe Rosen, "Am Yisrael Chai," Issue, 9:4 (1993), p. 2
4. Karl A. Schleunes, The Twisted Road To Auchwitz (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1970), p. 30, also see J. Bergman, Eugenics and Nazi Racial Policy, p. 118

This essay is copyrighted by Mariano Grinbank of the website "True Free Thinker" at www.truefreethinker.com.

It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose (in agreement or in order to criticize it) only as long as the following conditions are met:

Give credit to Mariano Grinbank of the website "True Free Thinker" and provide the url: www.truefreethinker.com/articles/arguments-atheists-should-not-use.
Inform me as to where it is being reproduced via the comments section or use the Trackback url: http://www.truefreethinker/trackback/43

Herp derp

Anonymous — Tue, 07/19/2011 - 10:41pm

"Unless an atheist can provide absolute proof of XYZ..." (100x)

So basically, any argument that doesn't satisfy the simplistic, black and white standards of apologist "logic" is refuted? Sorry buddy, the impercievably complex whole of existence doesn't break down into nice, neat little absolutist categories - who would have guessed?

It's no coincidence that the most cogent apologist arguments/rebuttals I've ever heard didn't constrain themselves with a puerile, dichotomic worldview.

I'm only more encouraged to use the above arguments, if this is the best ya got.

quite simple

Anonymous — Mon, 08/01/2011 - 10:09am

"So basically, any argument that doesn't satisfy the simplistic, black and white standards of apologist "logic" is refuted?"

-no mate, unless someone, anyone can provide absolute proof of XYZ, they are not entitled to make authoritative claims to XYZ being anything other than an opinion.

"dichotomic" - you mean "dichotomous"

Straw men

Armand Duvall (not verified) — Sat, 04/03/2010 - 10:07am

most of the above are straw men. You need to read some actual books written by real atheist, not quote the straw men that creationists think atheists believe.

O rly?

Anonymous — Thu, 10/21/2010 - 10:02am

Armand, your own post contains a type of straw man fallacy. BTW I've seen these arguments used by many atheists.

Worldview and Science Examiner

Fitness, Exercise, Bodybuilding, Weightlifting and Workouts

Book navigation

Arguments That Atheists Should Not Use

Herp derp

quite simple

Straw men

O rly?

Search

Tags

TFT Content:

Similar

Article Tags (Admin)