The Suicide Argument (Official)
#Defeating atheism fun and Easy!!!
P1- Atheists have to accept that all moral values are subjective.
P2- If all moral values are subjective, then no action is objectively wrong.
P3- If no action is objectively wrong, then abolishing atheism all together is not objectively wrong.
P4- A position that makes you admit it's not objectively wrong to abolish it is self defeating
C- Atheism is self-defeating
:Defending the premises:
[[Defending Premise 1]] - Without God, object moral values do not and cannot exist. Anyone disagreeing with this truth statement must be able to 1.) Provide an example of an objective moral value, and 2.) give a theory behind its origin that is not rooted in God(s). This is an impossible task, but you are more than welcome to try.
First, let us talk about what we mean by objective moral values. When we say objective moral values, we mean moral values that are true and independent of what anyone believes or says about them. For example, Nazi anti-semitism was morally wrong even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought it was good; and it would still be wrong, even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. Objective moral values are values that exist despite anyones opinions, societal teachings, upbringing, etc. They are totally independent of anyones views on them. They exist as a baseline/foundation for morality and are unchanging. It would be the view that all moral values vary from person to person, culture to culture, decade to decade, opinion to opinion. There would effectively be no real underlying good or bad, no true right or wrong , and no objective good or evil. There would only be peoples opinions and beliefs about what is acceptable.
Next its important to note that in premise 1, the term 'accept' is used in the context of atheists having to consent to (based on their position), the fact that moral values are subjective. However, as a believer in God, I do not have to accept moral values are subjective. I can accept the possibility that there is in fact an objective moral code/law which exists and was put in place/provided to us by a creator.
This is generally the only premise of the argument which anyone tries to attack. Premises 2-4 are generally unchallenged.
To kick this off, let me remind people of a small detail that may or may not come up, which I previously touched on. In P1 of the argument, we use the word accept, rather than accepted, because it's not that all atheists have accepted the notion that moral values must be subjective, rather it's that they have no other choice, and that they must ultimately 'accept' this truth based on their chosen position/worldview. The problem is that many atheists still don't fully understand their own position, or what choosing a position such as atheism actually entails. Let me explain
In P1 we use the word accept in a context which is to say, atheists by definition have no other choice but to adhere to an ideology in which moral values are purely subjective. Why?? Because without God, objective morality cannot exist. This is where some atheists will object, by attempting to present the rescuing device they have for this dilemma. As they attempt to provide evidence for the origin of a Godless objective moral code, refer back to the two questions. Making them define the suggested moral law, and provide its origin.
You will begin to see that no atheist can offer an objective basis for morality from their atheistic worldview. One atheist said not harming people is the standard. But why is harming people wrong if there is no God? And what if harming people enhances your survival and that of others? Another said, happiness is the basis for morality. But happiness according to who, Mother Teresa or Hitler??You notice that without God there is no basis for objective morals. It’s just Mother Teresa’s opinion against Hitler’s. It would all be subjective.
So in conclusion we see that in order for morality to be objective then a God must exist. An atheistic evolutionary account of human moral values deny their objectivity. If moral values developed for evolutionary reasons, then they did so because they are socially advantageous. But, if our moral beliefs exist as they do merely because they are socially advantageous, then there is no reason to think that there is something deeply wrong about murder, for example. We only think that murder is wrong because having that belief was somehow fitness-enhancing. Dr. William Lane Craig says he cannot imagine what it would be like for moral values simply to exist without explanation. Further, he argues, such an account (moral values without explanation) cannot adequately explain moral duties. This is because the atheist would have to say a duty is something that is owed to someone; but if objective moral values just exist, then to whom are my duties owed? Craig argues that the only way to make sense of having a moral duty is to suppose that someone created the moral laws, and that it is to that being that we owe our moral duties. Presumably, such a being would have to be God. (Dr. William Lane Craig)
:Ask the atheist to:
1.) GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF AN OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUE
2.) TELL YOU WHERE IT CAME FROM
OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUE: THAT WHICH EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY SOCIETY, TIME PERIOD, OR ANYONES THOUGHTS/OPINIONS
Now that we have a good understanding of the difference between objective and subjective moral values, we clearly see that an independent moral foundation (Objective moral values) cannot exist without God. Atheists by definition deny or disbelieve a God of any kind exists. Therefore Premise 1 stands, and atheists must accept that moral values are simply subjective.
[[Defending Premise 2]] - If all moral values are subjective, then no action is objectively wrong. I've never seen anyone make a rebuttal towards this premise. If someone makes an attempt at this I will add information here and in the 'common rebuttals' section.
[[Defending Premise 3]] - If no action is objectively wrong, then abolishing atheism all together is not objectively wrong. I've never seen anyone make a rebuttal towards this premise. If someone makes an attempt at this I will add information here and in the 'common rebuttals' section.
[[Defending the Conclusion]] - If no action is objectively wrong, then abolishing atheism cannot therefore be objectively wrong. This is to say, if it's ok or morally good/acceptable to
abolish atheism all together, then that proves atheism really was of no value or importance. Only things of value and importance are considered wrong to due away with. Things that people are indifferent about are meaningless and expendable. This argument has proven that atheism is a self -defeating position. A worldview that makes you accept that it's ok to throw it out cannot be correct. If I thought it was good to love my son today (subjectively), but tomorrow I thought it was good to throw him out in the trash (subjectively), then ultimately my son has no real value or importance to me. If he did have value or importance then it WOULD NEVER BE OK to throw him away. Same with atheism. But TSA has proven that atheists have to accept subjective morality and subjective morality can evolve to the point where throwing out atheism is good, ok, and acceptable by everyone on planet earth.
So back to the statement, evolution cannot account for objective moral values. Some atheists insist that morality is simply the product of evolution. As we have already discussed, if evolution produced human morality then it cannot be objective. Even if common moral sensibilities (don’t murder, rape, steal, etc.) would have helped ensure our evolutionary survival, its still not objective, and there are also a number of problems with such a view:
- Rape may enhance the survival of the species, but does that make rape good? Should we rape?
- Killing the weak and handicapped may help improve the species and its survival (Hitler’s plan). Does that mean the Holocaust was a good thing?
- Evolution provides no stable foundation for morality. If evolution was the source of morality, then what’s to stop morals from evolving (changing) to the point that one day rape, theft and murder are considered morally ok?
- Atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens confuse epistemology with ontology (how we know something exists with that and what exists). So even if natural selection or some other chemical process is responsible for us knowing right from wrong, that would not explain why something is right or wrong. How does a chemical process (natural selection) yield an immaterial moral law? And why does anyone have a moral obligation to obey a chemical process? You only have a moral obligation to obey an ultimate personal being (God) who has the authority to put moral obligations on you. You don’t have a moral obligation to chemistry.
Moreover, if morality evolved because it produced survival benefits, we would not have objective moral principles & obligations. We would only sense that objective moral obligations exist, but they really wouldn’t. Once we’ve figured out that our feeling of morality with regard to say, rape, is just a biological adaptation built into us over millions of years, then we would have no reason to regard rape as objectively wrong anymore.
[[Objective moral values are simply an illusion]] - Some atheists will claim that evolution has programmed us to believe in certain values, but that those values are not really objective. First of all if the atheist makes this claim, they in fact have just admitted P1 of the argument is true because they are essentially saying objective morals are an illusion (therefore do not exist). This is a common mistake atheists make which slits their own throats. However, the reason they are doing this is to try and say that believers cannot accept objective moral values either. Let us take a quick look at what Dr. William Lane Craig says on this matter. "To infer that evolution has programmed us to believe in certain values, therefore those values are not objective is a logical fallacy. This type of reasoning is at worst a text-book example of the genetic fallacy and at best only proves that our subjective perception of objective moral values has evolved. But if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then such a gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm." So what is the genetic fallacy? Genetic fallacy is committed whenever someone tries to invalidate a view by explaining how that view originated or came to be held. People commit this fallacy, for example, when they dismiss your belief in democracy by saying, “You believe in it only because you were born in a democratic society.” That may, indeed, be the explanation of why you believe in democratic government, but that in itself does absolutely nothing to show that your belief is false. Its like saying, “You believe that the earth is round only because you were born in a scientific age!” Does that make your belief false?? Clearly not. Aesthetic value/beauty is a perfect illustration of this point. Suppose we agree for the sake of argument that evolution has programmed men to see young women as more beautiful than old women because of the selective advantage to the species of mating with younger women. Does that do anything at all to show that younger women are not in fact generally more beautiful (physically) than old women, that there is no objective difference between beauty and ugliness? Obviously not! Objective aesthetic values can exist regardless of how we come to apprehend them. Now you might say, “All right; I see that objective moral values can exist even if we’re programmed by evolution to believe in them. But, still, why should I think that they are objective, given the evolutionary story?” The answer is, “Because you clearly apprehend them and the evolutionary story gives you reason to doubt your moral sense ONLY IF naturalism (atheism) is true.” The objection begs the question because it presupposes that naturalism is true. If reproductive fitness determined our appraisal of beauty, then why wouldn’t a young woman with a big nose and a harelip look as beautiful to me as a fashion model? Ugly young women are just as fertile as beautiful ones. So what selective advantage is there in being attracted to beautiful women rather than just younger women? Or again, isn’t it odd that you, a woman, agree with me that the young model is more beautiful than an old woman, since you as a woman could have no selective advantage from such an aesthetic judgment? Even if evolution programmed you to think that young men are more handsome than old men, why do you also find the young female model more beautiful (physically) than an old woman? Or again, how is it that we also recognize beautiful members of other species? We often admire a particularly beautiful Arabian horse or a champion in a dog show. How can such judgments be plausibly explained as due to evolutionary programming, since differential judgments of beauty in other animals has absolutely no selective advantage for us? (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/our-grasp-of-objective-moral-values#ixzz2EcJGjoFF)
[[You can have a subjective morality that is shared amongst an entire population]] - That is possible, however that would not be an example of objective morality. If anyone brings up this rebuttal, first remind them that if they are seriously going to try and defeat an argument they should at least know the terms and definitions. When we say objective morality, we mean that which is independent of any persons opinions, culture, society, time period or populations shared beliefs. An opponent of the Suicide Argument who uses such a rebuttal has failed to understand the content definitions and essentially lost before they started. So even if an entire population held the same moral values and beliefs, they still would ultimately be subjective as they would be subject to change. Take the Hitler example into consideration. If Hitler had won the war and killed everyone on the planet who opposed him, and brainwashed everyone of the population to believe the holocaust was good, it would still be evil.
[[Objective morality does not exist]] - TSA does not make any positive claims about the existence or non-existence of objective moral values. However, we could easily give numerous examples and prove OM do exist, if such a position is shown must be defended for TSA to stand. Example of this are many, such as: Imagine everyone on planet Earth believed it was morally ok to humiliate, torture, rape and brutally murder handicap children when they reach puberty. Would it still be wrong? The answer is yes...It would still be wrong regardless of what the entire population felt about it. This is what we mean when we talk about objective morality. To deny this obvious fact is intellectual suicide and pure dishonesty.
Is it objectively wrong to kill black babies, or is it just subjectively wrong? If it's just subjectively wrong (and objective morality doesn't exist), then lets say in 100 years, every person on Earth agrees that it's 'ok' to kill black babies. Is it then morally right? Or is it still wrong regardless of what any society has evolved to believe? It's my position that it would still be wrong because objective moral values and duties do exist.
[[Objective morality can exist without God]] - The fact is that without God, objective morality cannot exist. If you encounter anyone who tries to dispel this notion, simply do the following...
:Ask them to:
1.) GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF AN OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUE
2.) TELL YOU WHERE IT CAME FROM
OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUE: THAT WHICH EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF ANY SOCIETY, TIME PERIOD, OR ANYONES THOUGHTS/OPINIONS
[[God could have said rape was ok, or murder was ok. This proves objective morality doesn't exist]] - Not True!! This fails for two reasons. First of all when God applied the objective morality code for his creation, he did not do so subjectively. Gods thoughts on objective morality are not subjective. Rather, they are objectively necessary, as his omniscience allows nothing other than the objective moral truth and goodness of every possible outcome/situation to be known by him. These objective moral values and truths exist independent of any human or societies opinions on them. Furthermore, Gods omnibenevolence would not permit him to subjectively alter these known moral truths. So this means that this brings us to the second point. If Gods will and thoughts are the exact same thing as objective moral values, and they exist together as one, then that means they cannot be changed. It would have been logically impossible for an omniscient, omnibenevolent being, which non is greater than, to have subjectively altered objective morality. Essentially, because objective morality and Gods thoughts are the same thing, such an act would have meant God change himself. This is patently absurd for many reasons such as the fact we know by definition God must be unchanging, and also because he is already omniscient and ominbenevolent.
We as humans “experience” the objective moral values which just are God’s nature as divine commands, but he does not adhere to that horn of the Euthryphro dilemma that would say that God’s commands determine what objective moral values are.
So in conclusion we see that God could not have subjectively applied an objective moral code in which rape and murder were ok, or morally right.
[[If God created objective morality then he did so subjectively/Gods beliefs are subjective, therefore cannot be a source of objective morality]] - This is a common rebuttal that falls flat. Gods thoughts on objective morality are not subjective at all. Rather, it can be said that they are more so 'Objectively Necessary', as his Omniscience allows nothing other than the objective moral truth and goodness of every possible outcome/situation to be known by him. These objective moral values and truths exist independent of any humans thoughts or opinions on them. Furthermore, Gods omnibenevolence would not permit him to subjectively alter these known moral truths. This is not to imply the objective moral values exist beyond, above, prior to, or outside of God. Rather, Gods moral knowledge/goodness and the objective morality code that he applied to his creation are the exact same thing. They are not mutually exclusive nor do they exist independent of one another. Objective morality exist as God, with God, inside of and a part of Gods omniscience grace and omnibenevolent power eternally in the past. There is no mechanism that would prevent an all powerful, all knowing, omnibenevolent, supernatural, personal being, which none greater can be conceived, from placing his OBJECTIVE MORAL knowledge in line for his people to follow.
[[If objective morals existed, they would be greater than God. Nothing greater than god can be possible, therefore objective morality cannot exist]] - Fail!! Objective moral values and duties are not greater than God. For example: Objective moral values cannot create universes, nor do they have an all powerful personal mind...God by definition is a being is which no one or no thing can be greater than. Beyond that, one must remember, Objective moral values do not exist beyond, above, prior to, outside of or before God. Rather, Gods moral goodness/knowledge/truth and the objective morality code tat he applied to his creation are the exact same thing. They are not mutually exclusive nor do they exist independent of one another. Objective morality exists as God, with God inside of God omniscient grace and omnibenevolent power eternally in the past.
[[If God is the cause of objective morals, then he must be void of a will from which to be independent. God is not void of a will from which to be independent, Therefore god cannot be the cause of objective morals.]] - A rebuttal such as this one fails because Objective Moral Values are not independent or 'void' of Gods will. Rather, the two are exactly the same thing. God’s moral attitudes/knowledge and objective morality are not mutually exclusive rather they are one in the same. This is where we believe many peoples confusion comes in. They don't understand that the two are exactly the same thing and therefore lose sight of the entire argument.
[[Aliens could have created objective morality, therefore they are not dependent on the existence of God]] - The aliens are not defined in Anselmian terms as that being greater than which none can be conceived, and thus do not necessarily have “the Good” as a great-making property. That is why the alien’s moral views are subjective, and God’s are objective. Gods thoughts on objective morality are 'objectively necessary' as his omniscience allows nothing other than the objective moral truth and goodness of every possible outcome/situation to be known by him. These objective moral values and truth exist independent of any alien or humans thoughts/opinions on them. Furthermore, Gods omnibenevolence would not permit him to subjectively alter these known moral truths. This is not to imply that objective moral values exist beyond, above, prior to, or outside of God. Rather, Gods goodness/morality and the objective moral code he applied to his creation are the exact same thing. They are not mutually exclusive nor do they exist independent of one another. Objective morality exists as God, with God, inside of Gods omniscient grace and omnibenevolence power eternally in the past. The same cannot be said for aliens (they are not defined as the Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, or the greatest being one can conceive), thus such an option fails.
Not only that, but if Aliens created us, and created our objective morality code, it wouldn't be objective at all. Because remember, Objective morals values are defined as those which exist independent of anyone, or anything (including aliens).
[[ P1: Objective Morality is independent of will
P2: Subjective Morality is dependent on will
P3: God's will can change independently of Objective Morality
P4: God's will is Subjective
P5: Objective Morality is Subjective
C: Objective Morality does not exist ]]
Someone attempting to prove objective morality does not exist using such argumentation has failed on multiple philosophical fronts. The first problem is that
[[TSA does not make the positive assertion or claim that OM do or do not exist]] - TSA simply states that atheists cannot 'accept' the existence of OM based on their worldview. The opposite of this is theism. Where we can 'accept' the possibility that objective morality does in fact exist. The argument itself does not make the assertion that OM certainly do or certainly do not exist, rather is refers to the possibility and acceptance of such an explanation. If someone can prove that the actual existence of OM must be defended and proven to exist for TSA to stand, we have no problem doing so, and it is quite easy. As of right now, no one has proven that we must do so as it is irrelevant to the soundness or validity of the argument. We will leave this as an open invitation.
The second problem here is that we can easily prove OM do exist...See below
[[More Proof OM Do exist]] - There are numerous examples. Here is one. Imagine everyone on planet Earth believed that it was morally ok or just to humiliate, torture, rape and brutally murder handicap children when they reach puberty. Would it still be morally wrong? The answer is yes!! It would still be wrong regardless of what the entire population believed or thought about it. This is what we mean when we talk about objective morality. To deny this obvious truth is intellectual suicide and dishonesty at its finest...
Thirdly. [[Morality is dependent on will]] - an argument such as this one falls apart because it's an argument from ignorance, and straw-man fallacy. P1 of the proposed rebuttal states OM is independent of will...The problem is that morality is not depended on anyones will. Morality has to right and wrong, not what anyones 'will' is. For example, it could be my 'will' to punch you in the face for no reason, but still it would be possible for me to know if such an action is wrong. For the sake of argument let us assume the word will means some form of thought. P1 of this rebuttal is patently false. Objective morality is independent of anyones thoughts about them, but exist together as one as a part of Gods thoughts. How? Because by definition, God’s moral attitudes/knowledge and objective morality are EXACTLY the same thing. We as humans “experience” the objective moral values which are simply God’s nature as divine commands. This then makes P3 false because Gods will and thoughts are the exact same thing as objective moral values...So claiming that they are independent of one another or that Gods thoughts can change independent of (OM) is an argument from ignorance...
Finally, that brings us to the fallacy presented in P4 and P5...This is where the authors laughable argument shifts from objective morality needing to be independent of thoughts in beings other than God (for p1 to stand based on definition), to incorporating the idea that Gods thoughts are also part of this. They are not. As stated previously, Gods moral knowledge and objective morality, which he put in place for us to follow, are the exact same thing. Someone may say that for us, it seems Gods thoughts on objective morality are subjective...Again this is false. An all knowing being ultimately knows what is perfectly good. What is perfectly Just. What is perfectly right or wrong. He knows this because he knows the outcome of every situation and there is no limit to the effects of certain decisions that he could see. Also because he is omniscient and omnibenevolent by definition allows this to be true and un altered. This knowledge would exist inside of him and with him eternally in past. This knowledge about what's ultimately right and wrong, fair and unfair, moral and immoral, is then provided to all of mankind when God creates us...So GODS thoughts on objective morality are not subjective, rather objectively necessary as his omniscience allows nothing other than the objective moral truth and goodness of every possible outcome to be known.
DEBATING STRATEGY FOR TSA - BASIC::
1.) Ask the atheist to admit, that in their worldview, they must accept all moral values are subjective. If they will not admit this fact, ask them to give you an example of an objective moral value which atheists can accept.
2.) Next, ask them to explain to you how such an OMV originated.
3.) Once you have proven that atheists must accept all moral values are subjective, remind them that if all moral values are purely subjective, then no action is objectively wrong. Everything becomes a matter of society, time period, opinion, and personal belief.
4.) Next, remind the atheist that if no action is objective wrong, then abolishing atheism all together would not be objectively wrong .
5.) You have just proven that atheism is a self-defeating position!! How?? If there is no real true right or wrong, then it would not be wrong to abolish atheism all together. A position which undermines itself, and proves it's not objectively wrong for a person to throw it out completely is self-defeating, and thus cannot be correct.
** You cannot slide the word Christian, Believer, or Theist in the place of Atheism and flip the argument around. To understand why, all you have to do is go back and look at Premise 1 of the argument. Christians, Believers, and Theists do not have to accept that all moral values are subjective. We can accept the possibility that there is in fact an objective morality/value code which exists and was put in place/provided to us by our creator.
** Your opponent may try to say if there is no real right or wrong then it also wouldn't be right to abolish atheism. This is true, but the fact is that it also wouldn't be wrong. The atheist who makes such a claim has missed the entire point of the argument. The fact that there is no objective right or wrong means that everything becomes opinion based. For example: If it wasn't objectively wrong to throw black babies off a bridge, and it was just my opinion that it was wrong, essentially moral values could evolve to the point where babies lives simply aren't that important and everyone agreed it was morally ok/acceptable to kill black children this way. If it wasn't objectively wrong to rape women on their 18th birthday, then at some point in the future such an act could be looked at as being noble or courageous. Basically undermining the worth of that woman or the lives of black babies. The list goes on and on. Hopefully you get the point.
The same can be said for atheism. If no action is objectively wrong, and we abolish atheism all together, then it proves atheism really was of n value. Only things of value are considered wrong to do away with. Things that people are indifferent about are meaningless and expendable. This argument (TSA) has proven that atheism is self defeating. The following is a great example of what I mean. Hypothetically, imagine in 100 years that a world leader with brainwashing powers takes over planet Earth and decides to completely abolish atheism. After he kills every single atheist on Earth he then brainwashes everyone to believe atheism was terrible, flawed, illogical, nonsensical garbage that is not an option. After this mass killing and brainwashing occurred, everyone on planet Earth believed that it was 'good' and morally right to kill all atheists and abolish atheism all together. Was it 'good' and morally right because every living person on the planet believed it was 'good' and morally right, or was it still objectively wrong regardless of societies or anyones opinions?? The atheist has just been shown that atheism is self-refuting.
"A person who doesn't believe in God but who does agree that morals are objective, believing them to exist just as abstract objects like the laws of mathematics or logic?" In my Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed. (Crossway, 2008), I call this view Atheistic Moral Platonism and raise three objections to it.
First, it's difficult even to comprehend this view. What does it mean to say, for example, that the moral value Justice just exists? It's hard to know what to make of this. It is clear what is meant when it is said that a person is just; but it is bewildering when it is said that in the absence of any people, Justice itself exists. Moral values seem to exist as properties of persons, not as mere abstractions—or at any rate, it is hard to know what it is for a moral value to exist as a mere abstraction. Curiously, since the abstract object Justice is not itself just (just as Quickness is not quick or Laziness lazy), it would seem to follow that in the absence of any people justice does not exist—which seems to contradict the hypothesis! Atheistic moral Platonists seem to lack any adequate foundation in reality for moral values but just leave them floating in an unintelligible way.
Second, the nature of moral duty or obligation seems incompatible with Atheistic Moral Platonism.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that moral values do exist independently of God. Suppose that values like Mercy, Justice, Love, Forbearance, and the like just exist. How does that result in any moral obligations for me? Why would I have a moral duty, say, to be merciful? Who or what lays such an obligation on me? On this view moral vices such as Greed, Hatred, and Selfishness also presumably exist as abstract objects. Why am I obligated to align my life with one set of these abstractly existing objects rather than any other? Theism, by contrast, provides a plausible basis for moral duty in the divine commands or will.
Thirdly, it is fantastically improbable that just that sort of creatures would emerge from the blind evolutionary process who correspond to the abstractly existing realm of moral values. This seems to be an utterly incredible coincidence when one thinks about it. It's almost as though the moral realm knew that we were coming. It is far more plausible to regard both the natural realm and the moral realm as under the hegemony of a divine Creator and Lawgiver than to think that these two entirely independent orders of reality just happened to mesh.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/classifying-immaterial-objects#ixzz2wcm95Jbg
::Quick way to defeat atheists (Tip #13)::
Ask the atheist if Objective moral values exist.
1.) If they say no, then show them how atheism is a self refuting position.
2.) If they say yes, then show them they just admitted God exists.
If objective moral values do not exist, then it's not objectively wrong to lets say "kill every atheist on the planet" or "abolish atheism all together." Essentially their own position sets the landscape for its own destruction.
If objective moral values do exist, then God exists. Period.
"I developed this two step line of reasoning when I created the Suicide Argument. I don't think you will see it used anywhere else online, but its very effective and unique." -Atheist Killa
"If ones own worldview sets the landscape in such a way that it has no true value (can be abolished), then it's a self refuting position. Thus, it cannot be correct...The only reason this was a possibility was because people adhered to the faulty logic of atheism.' -Atheist Killa
If you have any common rebuttals that you would like to see added please let us know. Thank you and God Bless!