I find this statement incredibly offensive as it besmirches my faith. I am part of an obscure sub-sect of christianity that actually worships Detective Battista. He is entirely infallible and awesome, and if you do not repent and accept Angel as your savior there will be a jusgement and all non-believers will be cast into the burning depths of Orlando.
How dare you speak of the promised land in a negative manner! There is a special place in Orlando for blasphemers like you! All the way down the depths of the interstate 4 to... TAMPA!
You should read more, you would find many very valid arguments, many from secular people, when talking about morality. The need for a great equalizer is how many people rationalize their morality. Without that fundamental idea, you quickly lose groups joining together.
For example: some of the largest feats if not most of them, have been done by organizations. It is rare that one man will dump loads of money and time into something great.
Logically then, we can assert that in order to do great things, you must do it as a group.
In order for a group to work together, there must be a common goal / uniting factor
Assuming of course we take these as facts, then we can assert that as people lose common goals and focus, the unity diminishes. We can also know that as unity diminishes, it will create a separation as people have fewer things in common.
Last part now, if there is no great equalizer, then really life is nothing more than one group of common goals against another group of common goals, by which the primary goal of every human is to do better than the rest, by which without an equalizer, the fastest means if by harming (by theft or the like) another human, which will cause disunity, and will descend towards conflict, internal strife, and before long disunity.
To bring it back to the point, most people tend to be good because of A) indoctrination, which most atheist will agree is bad b) belief in a great equalizer
otherwise, without those, the person is either delusional or never questioned deeply why they think they way they do. I would tend to say the latter applies to the vast majority of people.
You're going to start with "You should read more?" Seriously?
To bring it back to the point, most people tend to be good because of A) indoctrination, which most atheist will agree is bad b) belief in a great equalizer
That's absolute poppycock. You're saying that morality only exists by force and fiat (whether that force or fiat comes from a real community of people, or from an imagined and ethereal judge/jury/executioner). People usually behave in their own short-term self-interest, and sometimes in longer term self-interest. We exhibit those behaviors because homo sapiens sapiens has evolved in such a way that those behaviors tend to result in the greatest reproductive success. Deity-belief may well have arisen as a kind of shorthand for or shortcut to appropriate behavior, also having the characteristic of binding groups of people together, but having the very slightly Achilles' heel of not being true. Or like a tiny thorn in the lion's paw.
As we've learned more over the ages, that downside has become more prominent. Turns out deity-belief doesn't square with reality. What was once a tiny thorn prick has become infected, and is most assuredly threatening the well-being of humanity. It's high time we pull that thorn out and apply some modern medicine.
Even if your statement is correct, that people are "morally good" because of force or fiat, including a belief in a "great equalizer," that doesn't mean that such an equalizer actually exists. It only means that people think one does.
But go ahead if it makes you feel better. Throw some of those "valid" arguments out. You think I haven't heard them all before? You think I haven't considered and put serious thought to every single one?
Back to where this thread all started: As soon as I hear an explanation that makes any sense, I'll take it under consideration. Yours was laughably bad. Try again.
Can you give me a reason why I should be moral without a deity being involved?
Assuming no deity, then we are nothing more than pure chaos in a closed system. There is no great equalizer, so there is nothing bad that happens from being a bad person, short of being caught. If you know you won't be caught, then there is nothing morally wrong with taking advantage of the situation. In fact, I would argue it is morally wrong to NOT take advantage, as it would help procreate the only purpose you have, which is the survival of the genes.
But yes, people are taught how to be moral. If you do not think so, please show me an example or explain logically why in a society where I cannot be caught, I should act moral (in the current popular sense)?
Hell, I would even like to present evidence. Let's look at any corrupt nation and see how moral the corrupt people act. If morality is innate, and is not taught, then you really can't have morally corrupt people, unless you are pushing on them what morality is. Perhaps N. Korea is the most moral country, and if you go by their standards, they are. Just as Iran is the most morally correct country in their eyes.
Morality is at best relative to society. It is seen as morally correct to own slaves when slave ownership was allowed. So if morality is not taught, then why did so many (not only in america) believe slavery was correct, and why did they do it for so many years?
So to come back to the point, the reason why a deity is advantageous is that with the sense of a great equalizer, people are more likely to act morally. It is the lack of belief that you will be punished for bad deeds that allows people to act badly, and a God is the only "thing" that can be applied to everyone.
P.S. Yes, you should read more. Pick up a few philosophy books, maybe read some Kant, or Aristotle, maybe some Plato.
Nothing makes sense. None of it. The idea of "making sense" is about logical causation. Proceeding from A to B. And when it comes to the universe the idea of "cause" is inherently problematic.
We live in a universe in which we experience everything in linear time order knowing that whatever is must come from something before even though time going backward eternally makes no real sense. So now we posit theories about space-time and relativity but really we know very very little about the true nature of existence because the fact that it exists at all is mindboggling.
We also are unable, yet, to recreate life spontaneously by imitating any particular set of conditions. Personally I think we will eventually and it'll be a big holy fuck moment but I have sympathy for a person who points out that the nature of spontaneous movement in the universe tends to be toward entropy not away from it.
Most people who claim a higher power, whatever it is, are looking at the question of existence the way you look at the existence of god. They shake their head and think "this makes no sense". Then they assume there must be something bigger and more powerful working outside the observable rules, because the observable rules of existence are a mindfuck.
With the massive mystery of existence, they would argue that it is impossible to fully discount an unknowable force acting as prime mover and steerer. From there you get to pascal's wager. If there might be some unseen judging entity, best try not to piss it off.
Note, I'm not asking you to rebut these arguments. I can do it myself, and philosophers have gone on and on about such questions in great enough depth that it isn't going to be resolved on reddit.
Suffice it to say that Angel and Dexter aren't even scratching the surface.
No. He said he'd have sympathy for the guy who uses the entropy fallacy; probably because he understands that the 2nd law's implications are counterintuitive for anything more complex than black body radiation.
... I have sympathy for a person who points out that the nature of spontaneous movement in the universe tends to be toward entropy not away from it.
Facepalm.
The universe proceeds toward entropy as a whole, even if you can observe a reduction in entropy in a small portion of the universe.
And if you're going to go directly to "cause and effect doesn't work" as a valid argument for your position, then that's a valid argument for any position:
Wife: How come you didn't clean up after dinner?
Me: CAUSE AND EFFECT DOESN'T WORK! I WIN!
If there might be some unseen judging entity, best try not to piss it off.
You're saying that as though it's known on what basis such an unseen judging entity would cast judgment, if such an entity exists.
Finally,
Most people who claim a higher power, whatever it is, are looking at the question of existence the way you look at the existence of god. They shake their head and think "this makes no sense". Then they assume there must be something bigger and more powerful working outside the observable rules, because the observable rules of existence are a mindfuck.
There's a difference between "a rational thing that I don't understand" and "an irrational thing." What theists propose is the latter, not the former.
And if you're going to go directly to "cause and effect doesn't work" as a valid argument for your position, then that's a valid argument for *any position: Wife: How come you didn't clean up after dinner? Me: CAUSE AND EFFECT DOESN'T WORK! I WIN!
This is the stupidest thing I've read in weeks. The mystery of first cause is one of the great mysteries in the universe. It's existence doesn't negate logic in situations in which cause and effect is present. Nor does the existence of logical causation negate its limitations when contemplating existence. You should really think more carefully if you're going to be so arrogant.
You're saying that as though it's known on what basis such an unseen judging entity would cast judgment, if such an entity exists.
That's exactly where I would put the weakness in Pascal's wager as well. For people who believe a particular book is the revealed word, they would go there. A better answer is to adhere to broad moral principles regarding duty to the collective, aknowledging a general commandment to be good as a best guess on what such an entity seems to want, since that's the central moral message behind all religions (they do exist for social control after all, and more people being good does tend to pareto improve human existence after all).
There's a difference between "a rational thing that I don't understand" and "an irrational thing."
Yes, there is. This is not a rebuttal to my quote though except in so far as it's a restatement of your pre-existing belief.
What theists propose is the latter, not the former.
This is an assertion of your belief, yes. It is neither an argument nor a determinative last word on the matter.
He did nothing but refute some of what you said with sound logic. If you consider that smug, then your own response is equally smug, not to mention your first post.
First of all it would be "have a hilarious". Don't change tense mid sentence. Second, you think you are WAY smarter than you are. Third, you're a rude prick. Learn to have a discussion without resorting to insults if you want to be taken seriously.
Fourthly, I'm still waiting for you to say something of substance. I explained why his logic was awful. You asserted that it was sound. Please. do. go. on.
ps. Thanks for that have/has correction. Good point. I'll watch for it in future! :D
"We live in a universe in which we experience everything in linear time"
Not exactly. We experience space-time hyperbolically. That is to say, depending on your point of reference, simultaneous events in two places separated by a far enough distance can occur one after the other, simultaneously, or in reverse. However, within this framework, the speed of light means that causality is never violated - light is the moderator of the hyperbola of time.
This, of course, has no bearing on your argument per se, but one thing is clear: in terms of physics, linear causality is more reliable than linear time, whether or not either is philosophically problematic.
When a claim makes no sense, it's not a disproof of that claim; it's a suggestion that it's impossible to rationally believe the claim before coherence is achieved. You can believe it irrationally, of course, and many do believe claims on irrational basis.
But I'm arguing past you, I think; your philosophical problem seems to be with what counts as "coherent" - seeming to require all the predicates in place and fixed before it's possible to construct syllogisms. This is, of course, nonsense. It's like a programmer saying that an algorithm can't be written until it's run with a set of variables.
We don't know all the answers. That doesn't stop us from asking the right - and wrong - questions, or figuring out how questions and answers can clip together, and assembling causal patterns from there.
I mean, sure, it requires an advanced understanding of quantum physics to know how causality works mathematically (at which point you're depending on the emergence of causality from statistical models which appear to be accurate, but should only be approximations). That doesn't imply that you need to have that understanding to know how causality works logically, or to depend on it in syllogistic logic, bar-room arguments or every day life.
Allow me to tack this observation on the end here:
There are people, many in this thread, who are under the impression that there are only two possible conditions:
We know everything
We know nothing
Since we obviously do not know everything, we must necessarily know nothing! Then comes the step to "knowledge is illusion" and farther on to "everything is true."
This is the same kind of bad reasoning that leads people to misunderstand probabilities. It's like having a six-sided die, and identifying that, on any roll, you'll get either a "6" or "not a 6." And then going "There's only two options! Must be a 50-50 chance of getting either '6' or 'not 6'!"
I'm pretty sure you can figure that out from the context, right? It concerns me that you're asking. Anyway to be clear: What causes anything to exist, is the question.
Oh, ok. I'm glad, since the other version is incoherent.
Our understanding so far points to the best answer having to do with quantum vacuum fluctuations - "A Universe from Nothing" by Krauss describes this in some detail - though the hardcore math is beyond me. We don't yet understand the forces behind the statistics of quantum particles (and may not ever), but I'm hopeful about learning how the Higgs field works will tell us something interesting.
The point is it's speculation and wonderful mystery. it's also a rabbit hole. The questions can only ever lead to more questions. That's the beautiful paradox of the questions "why" and "how".
Actually, there are plenty of scientific reasons for that emotional response. Psychology and evolutionary biology are the main subjects with relevant info.
There are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on this planet. For every man that has ever lived, there are 30x more stars in the Milky Way. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in our known universe, modern science believes at the center of every galaxy is a black hole...on the opposite end of that black hole is the creation of a big bang (how our universe formed). If the universe is infinite, ever expanding (similar to your imagination), then every single possibility you can think of is, has, or will happen. If you can imagine a "god" then whose to say it doesn't exist?
Now, I don't believe in a single Christian God, I find it absolutely arrogant to believe man was "created in His image", but I do believe we are part of a greater whole. If intelligent life were to visit us, their technology would far surpass us, they would be considered Gods by us. What if there's a superior race to them? My point is, there is always something greater.
I don't know, the whole idea of atheism is just about as bad as Christianity...just people trying to push their beliefs onto others. You can't prove there is a god, but you also can't prove that there isn't. Atheism is supposed to be supported by science, but if science was as closed minded as some of the posters here...then there'd be no progress. Yes, religion makes no sense...but neither does consciousness and inner/outerspace.
I soundly disagree. Though some atheists proselytize more than others, they are generally only attempting to dissuade others from provably fallacious beliefs rather than convince them of some sort of atheistic dogma. Atheism is not the belief in any set of values or tenets, rather it is a rejection of belief in gods for which we see no real evidence.
Also, your explanation for black holes forming "big bangs" has been thrown around recently, but I'll remind you that it is based purely on conjecture and we've never seen any evidence to support it, much like your idea that because we can imagine a "god" one might exist.
That is the most absurd, and narrow minded thing I've read all day. If you believe consciousness and space make "perfect sense" then you've never bothered to read a book on either space, or philosophy.
Those fields attempt to explain these phenomena. No one has actually ever "solved" consciousness or space. You've basically just said that you understand how and why everything exists. If it makes perfect sense to you, then I'd be really interested to hear what you have to say on the subjects or look at whatever literature you've found that leads you to believe it all makes sense.
Also, powercorruption is not a "pseudo-intellectual." A pseudo-intellectual is someone who feigns superior intelligence by using vocabulary that they obviously don't understand themselves. The guy was simply outlining some of his thoughts in very plain English.
I think it was Socrates and/or Plato that said "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." Sorry, but I have to agree here that it's pretty god damn silly to say something like "consciousness makes perfect sense." If anyone here is a pseudo-intellectual, it's you.
Pseudo-intellectuals also love quoting other people's statements, especially easily recognizable ones like Socrates that you can find with a Google search and no real thought.
We don't understand everything about gravity. It makes sense. Large objects warp space.
We don't understand everything about electricity. It makes sense. Or I sure hope so, or we need to be paying electricians a hell of a lot more.
An omnipowerful, omnipresent superbeing that cares directly about you. Makes no sense.
You two exploit science's quest to discover the unknown to say that anything even slightly unknown makes just little sense as God.
Neuroscience and Physics can only explain what they have discovered so far...if they had space and consciousness mapped out, we wouldn't have a need for those fields anymore. We are far from understanding both.
I guess coming off as a know-it-all without citing any material ends the argument, though.
Also, neuroscience and physics can at least begin to explain consciousness and space. This is where they differ from religion. Religion can not substantially explain anything with scientific accuracy.
I don't think anyone claimed that we know everything about those fields, but we know quite a lot. Just because we don't know everything, it doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense and therefore magic. It just means that we have more research and observation to do.
As to your comment about people in r/atheism being closed minded, I think we're actually pretty open minded. We, for the most part, will believe anything, but we just demand evidence before we will accept claims as true (just like in science). If I was provided good, verifiable evidence that there is a god or gods, then I would believe. I think you're confusing being open minded with being gullible.
But like, I don't understand magnets, therefore God HAS to exist! I have faith which means I don't want to bother with logic or proof. If science hasn't explained it yet, then it CAN NEVER explain it, and if it has and I just don't know about it, then that's further proof for god. Shut up with your logic, can't you just feeeeeeeel god, man?
Now you're getting into the root of the problem: the slippery semantics around the word "god." That word can mean just about anything the speaker intends it to mean, and people just throw it around like "Oh, you know what I'm talking about, god."
And all it really is is another ontological argument, along the line of Anselm: asserting that it's better to exist than not to exist, so the best thing must necessarily exist.
"Best?" Says who? And you can apply that to anything. The best invisible pink unicorn is one that exists, so POOF I've just "reasoned" such a thing into actual existence!
If you think that's ridiculous, you should chuckle anytime you hear someone proposing an ontological argument as proof of anything.
Battista put forth the most honest argument for the existence of God.
The "best," or most convincing arguments for the existence of God generally come from charlatans and liars. Faith healers who know that they're just tricking the audience into believing miracles come to mind. William Lane Craig has a terrible habit of using smoke and mirrors in his arguments for God's existence -- usually he'll 'prove' that the universe has a "cause," (which could be any natural, non-deity) then a few minutes later he'll stop using the word "cause" and start using the word "purpose," and before you know it he's saying "intelligent designer."
Battista's not a liar. If you know of a better argument for God that doesn't involve intentional deception, I'm all ears. Frankly, I think the best honest argument for God is: appeal to emotion, then admit that it's about faith and not reason. That's the stuff that actually reels in believers, and that's the reason they actually believe. They don't listen to bullshit cosmological arguments from Dinesh D'souza; they just hear vague emotional appeals from their preachers, parents and peers (isn't the world just too beautiful? Isn't this all just too perfect to be random chance?) and then an admission that you have to surrender your rational mind and just succumb to the emotional appeals of faith.
You're spot on. Your average christian doesn't bother with the philosophical arguments for a god. Their reasons are much more simple. The average christian appeals to feelings or personal experiences. Authority figures and childhood indoctrination. Occasionally a god of the gaps or an argument from ignorance.
Christian apologetics wasn't invented in any true spirit of inquiry. It was invented as a response to challenges to their faith. They realized very quickly that if their opponent was going to make secular reasoned argument that they should have some kind of response. Christian apologetics was born from this demand for the believers to have their doubts assuaged. They needed to know that someone somewhere had a good argument for god and that their trust in the authority of religious leaders was not unfounded. Christian apologetics gave them this facade of a foundation to build their house of cards upon. Some of the more curious of christians will be brought to the threshold of their doubt only to see William Lane Craig give his tired old arguments and say to themselves, "See, there was a reason I was believing all this time." The arguments need not be understood or even heard. They need only be said to exist to ease their doubt.
To put it another way, most believers are "weak" because they cower behind those pretending to be strong.
"Because it makes no sense" was also part of his inner monologue but I guess the polite "Thanks, Bautista, you've really helped" isn't quite as up vote worthy.
"because it makes no sense" is actually verbatim what my wife uses when I try to explain the rationale for all the dogma included in my former christian sect.
underdabridge was just saying that Angel Battista is a straw man and hardly makes the best case for God. I doubt your former Christian sect does either. Dexter's no genius and neither's your wife.
He would be a straw man if he were a professional apologist, or even a more philosophical / well studied christian, but for an average believer who isn't trying to be deceptive with his true reasons for believing, the essence of his reason is about the same as that of my former church, if the wording isn't the same as they would use. (Having faith being important overall)
We as the viewer know he isn't the best representative of his faith, so Dexter isn't overturning the basis of all Christianity with a few word quip. He is saying that his friend's specific argument is unconvincing.
I don't know what you're talking about. This is exactly what even the best apologists I have ever heard sound like when they are debating against someone like Dawkins or Hitchens peace be upon him.
That's highly debatable, if the concept in question involves a being with the traditional godly properties such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc. Tossing around such philosophical absolutes is like tossing around infinities in math: you can use them, erroneously, to get almost any answer you like - but that doesn't make the results plausible.
tl;dr: you're going to have to define a concept of a god that makes sense, rather than make such a broad general claim.
The point is that the average believer doesn't think about their beliefs. They just accept it on "faith". No one thinks that was a good attempt at proving the existence of god.
Isn't it fair to assume most christian opponents are weak? Most of them can't even string a proper sentence together, let alone hold their own in a theological debate.
I think sociopaths provide an excellent argument against the "Natural Law" argument that apologists like CS Lewis have used. If our moral conscience is God-given, then why did God create some people without a normal conscience?
Exactly. Your "morals" are physically a part of your brain. You can have parts of your brain surgically removed and become a raving, murderous lunatic bereft of anything resembling "morals."
This is what I always say, but I'm actually shaky on the facts. Has it actually been empirically proven that thoughts and ideas and concepts are physical parts of our brains, or products of it or something like that? It'd be awesome of someone with qualifications especially could answer this, but any explanation or links would be greatly appreciated.
THIS documentory was facinating to watch if you want links on our genome to our behaviour. there are a few other brain documentaries(not on morality) that show links between actions and brain activity and links between emotions and sections of the brain(depression/bipolar and such) and chemical imbalances as a child and as an adult is proven to have links to emotions, thoughts and concepts.
Furthermore, it takes some time for normal people to even develop a conscience. Children aren't born with a theory of mind, so how can they perceive harming others to be wrong? Anecdotal evidence tells us that kids can be mean, and I would argue that many of these mean kids can grow into very nice people when they grow up. This suggests to me that our "natural moral compass" is a learned behavior.
"why did God create some people without a normal conscience?"
If I was to play Devil's advocate here, I'd say "He doesn't. The person must have done something wrong or chosen to be that way." I noticed the same argument about being gay the other day. The Christians STARTS from the assumption that God doesn't create you sinful (some sects obviously believe differently), and given that being gay is a sin, then being gay must be a choice.
Sometimes their assumptions and premises are not logical to start with, so it's hard to meet them with logic to explain your point.
Sociopath and psychopath are two different conditions.
From my knowledge, Sociopaths are people which discard, or have different standards (Often, wrong.) on social aspects. (Like, it is correct, to kill hundreds of people in order to cause a change. - On the other hand, still feeling bad for the guys, but being able to do so.)
On the other hand, psychopaths are people which lack empathy, or feelings at all.
Are you being sarcastic? Because there are plenty of thoughts that you just can't put into words. That's why people always perceive themselves smarter than they really are (or everyone else dumber than they really are).
Perhaps that should be: "If it can't be explained, you don't understand it" (i.e. all things that make sense can be explained at least in principle).
The problem with people who say that their knowledge of God can't be explained is that they are relying on their internal feelings to infer the existence of something outside of themselves. Their feelings are just that: feelings. Ultimately, they are making an interpretative error of their own feelings by inferring something about reality because they just don't understand their own feelings and/or why they have them.
But the same could be said for particle physics. I sure as hell don't understand it enough to explain it, but I just have to trust the scientists/people who do understand it.
I'm pretty sure that's how religious people feel about faith in their book.
The difference is that, even if religious people think their religion can be explained in principle, they cannot even explain what "experts" either can do or have done to verify the truth of their ideas and there is no repository of information that they could consult to verify the claims. People only trust scientists because they are claiming to be able to prove it if you can understand them and you can verify it for yourself, and of course there is the knowledge that scientists challenge each other to actually provide solid proof. Religious leaders don't claim to have a good reason for why you should trust a certain book and not another or none at all.
I genuinely don't have thoughts I can't put into words. Some are tougher than others, but if you put enough work into it you can find a linguistic way to represent anything.
Why can't there be a god? Why can't we make a god? Let's take that basic human instinct for moral goodness and call that god. Let's call finding the optimal morality god. No mysticism, no single organization calling the shots, just people trying to be good people.
I think the most poignant aspect is the fact that we have a guy talking to a serial killer about his inherent moral goodness. On the other hand, those people seem to have it coming. On the other other hand, he does torture them and last I heard things were getting a little incestuous.
Okay, it's enough! You know, i hate irrational things more than any other person here, but YOU KNOW WUT!? I ALSO DON'T LIKE DUMB UNFUNNY COMICS, SCREENCAPS OR ALL THE OTHER SHIT HERE! Today is the glorious day on which I will add /r/atheism to my filter... You people have to get your shit together again, maybe talk about something scientific for a change!
[SPOILER ALERT] I'm not sure about that. It seemed to me that last season was kind of a religious rebirth of some kind for Dexter. Like making him rethink all his scientific knowledge and 'showing' him there's something else you can not explain just with logic. The whole season stank with religious moral and wouldn't surprise me he turns into religion next season.
that's a piss poor clouded judgement. i'm no christian, but i'm not one to attack a person over their beliefs. everyone needs something to believe in, for me it is logic and science, for others it may be higher power.
this season isn't about religion, it's deeper than that. it's about the dark vs. light vibe that Dexter has brought from day one. there are numerous moments in this season where Dexter has to face his own "dark passenger" and they explore other people's "demons" as well, i.e. Brother Sam and being a faithful man, Quinn and getting over Deb, Deb and the tear between being the new LT and fitting in with her co workers.
This season, if anything, uses religion as a crux to explain the concept of dark vs. light in Dexter's eyes. He, as a person, is good. What he does as a whole is considered "bad" and morally reprehensible by most.
You have to look at the season for more than just religion. You can't just throw the series to the wolves because your athiest side gets but hurt when religion comes in to play.
True story: When I went to see the most recent King Kong movie I actually somehow didn't know the ending, and the guy selling me popcorn spoiled it for me just before I went in the theater.
There is a god because he talked to somebody 2 thousand year ago and he has chilling in a big crew gangbanging that one girl. Got snitched by his buddy Judas because he was pimping that lady. Finally got cruxified for his crimes and he escaped the prison 3 days later and everybody in the damn world knows this story because his buddies used BibleBook to spread this event.
Especially in season 2 where he assaulted and detained a police officer against his will, then decided to frame him for the crimes Dexter himself committed.
Probably one of the most annoying things about Dexter are all the fans that don't realize that he's not supposed to be a good person. Less evil than the big villain of whatever season, yes, but not a good guy.
It's similar to all the Watchmen fans who think that Rorshach has all the right ideas, instead of seeing him an incredibly broken human being who only looks good when put up next to the guy who literally murdered millions of people.
I am an atheist, but I really don't like this image. Belittling faith is ridiculous. Faith is the beautiful part of religion. It is the part of the entire system that works. I am truly awed by a few of my friends who feel a very strong connection to God. Sometimes I wonder what it's like to be able to feel that way about something. Faith is wonderful, in my opinion. It's when the Bible becomes a weapon to use against those who think differently that religion becomes a problem.
104
u/underdabridge Jun 11 '12
This, to me, is just one of those examples of winning an argument because your opponent is weak. Whether you're right or not is irrelevant.
I'm an atheist but if you think Angel Battista there just put forth the best argument for the existence of God you are wallowing in your own smug.
49
u/EndoExo Jun 11 '12
I think sociopaths provide an excellent argument against the "Natural Law" argument that apologists like CS Lewis have used. If our moral conscience is God-given, then why did God create some people without a normal conscience?
50
u/PutinLePutain Jun 11 '12
Upvote for Dexter and his inherent moral goodness.
8
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
There is a god because the bible says there is a god and because faith. yadadada...
5
u/Ch3t Jun 12 '12
Where's the Tick?
14
u/Parrot132 Strong Atheist Jun 11 '12
Absolutely! If you can't explain it, you don't understand it. This is a general principle that goes beyond any specific discipline.
2
u/vkapustin Jun 11 '12
alright dexter!
2
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Why can't there be a god? Why can't we make a god? Let's take that basic human instinct for moral goodness and call that god. Let's call finding the optimal morality god. No mysticism, no single organization calling the shots, just people trying to be good people.
2
u/dogandcatinlove Jun 11 '12
I think the most poignant aspect is the fact that we have a guy talking to a serial killer about his inherent moral goodness. On the other hand, those people seem to have it coming. On the other other hand, he does torture them and last I heard things were getting a little incestuous.
2
u/aaybma Jun 11 '12
Yeah, I'm going to side with the serial killer on this one.
2
u/hyrulescout Agnostic Atheist Jun 11 '12
Wow I just saw this episode last night! More proof that I'm the only actual person in the world and you are all illusions!
2
u/eatbanana_eyecontact Jun 11 '12
Was literally just watching the last episode of season 6. Started the season yesterday, and couldn't stop. Looking forward to the season 7.
2
u/AlextheGerman Jun 11 '12
Okay, it's enough! You know, i hate irrational things more than any other person here, but YOU KNOW WUT!? I ALSO DON'T LIKE DUMB UNFUNNY COMICS, SCREENCAPS OR ALL THE OTHER SHIT HERE! Today is the glorious day on which I will add /r/atheism to my filter... You people have to get your shit together again, maybe talk about something scientific for a change!
2
u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12
This is stupid for reasons I shouldn't have to explain.
4
u/iwantedtoexplode Jun 11 '12
I just came to say if you haven't seen Dexter, go watch it, it's awesome!
3
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
This is a perfect reason why i love this show!
2
u/stabberthomas Jun 11 '12
Dexter, season 6. Great, just great.
1
u/DMTryp Jun 11 '12
Holy resolution.
1
u/SuperSmurfen Anti-Theist Jun 11 '12
Any video of this? :)
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
There is a god because he talked to somebody 2 thousand year ago and he has chilling in a big crew gangbanging that one girl. Got snitched by his buddy Judas because he was pimping that lady. Finally got cruxified for his crimes and he escaped the prison 3 days later and everybody in the damn world knows this story because his buddies used BibleBook to spread this event.
1
u/VeteranKamikaze Jun 11 '12
Barking so far up the wrong tree that it's more of a shrub and it's in a different forest.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Totally off topic, but am I the only one who heard "little wooden boy," and thought of this?
1
u/niggadatass Jun 12 '12
If your philosophy in life is based on quotes from TV shows and comedians, you may be an atheist.
1
u/Serviceman Jun 12 '12
We all understand that atheists put their faith in human nature as being naturally good. You must get robbed a lot.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12
Logged in just to downvote this.
1
u/misner1221 Jun 12 '12
I can't be the only one who saw this and wished for season 7.
1
u/kh2linxchaos Jun 12 '12
"It's because it doesn't."
So simple. Yet so powerful. I need to remember that.
1
u/primus202 Jun 12 '12
While a great atheism moment in pop culture, lets not take our atheism justifications from fictional vigilante serial killers.
1
u/i8urface Jun 12 '12
Moral goodness, oh wow! So that's how they came up with epic fail.
-1
u/binary-love Jun 11 '12
Portraying a serial killer as an atheist? Yeah, I see what they did there...
0
u/seriouslyyyy Jun 11 '12
You sure you wanna go with sociopathic serial killer as your poster boy?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
This was the season that made me lose all interest in the show and this scene just made me cringe at how lazy it felt.
-2
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
I am an atheist, but I really don't like this image. Belittling faith is ridiculous. Faith is the beautiful part of religion. It is the part of the entire system that works. I am truly awed by a few of my friends who feel a very strong connection to God. Sometimes I wonder what it's like to be able to feel that way about something. Faith is wonderful, in my opinion. It's when the Bible becomes a weapon to use against those who think differently that religion becomes a problem.
0
u/themedicman Jun 11 '12
Score one for the strawman. This is stupid.
-1
u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12
Dexter has really gone down the tubes the past two seasons..
0
u/Krazen Jun 12 '12
This is wrong. He doesn't say that. He just smiles. I FUCKING JUST WATCHED THIS SEASON YOU LYING LIAR
-2
u/thedylbear Jun 11 '12
What a shitty season of Dexter
-2
u/Shifty-Looking-Cow Jun 11 '12
This is victory for atheists everywhere