I’ve sort of moved away from arguing with theists (because it’s too easy), but if any theist can be considered my arch-victim, it’s Fake_Andrew, and so I’m setting a flawless end to his one and only original angle in debates.
His argument is as follows:
An atheist has no objective basis for their morality, therefore they cannot say they are any morally better than a Nazi.
When I use the word ‘objective’ in this article, I’ll be referring to ‘ontological objectivity’ unless otherwise stated.
I’ve explained all the things that are fundamentally wrong with this argument before, and I recommend you read that first. I also used a certain method to destroy the argument in that article, but I can do even better than I did then, this time just using pure reasoning.
I actually vocalised (and originally theorised) this solution during the Fake Debate #2. I thought I made it pretty clear there, but I’m writing this here because amazingly Andrew is still using this Nazi argument as if it’s effective and hasn’t been debunked. If I’m persistent, he won’t have any atheists left to attempt to trap, and I’ll have quite a few new viewers right here! Thanks Andrew!
It took a while to deconstruct the twisted logic Andrew is using. There’s always a way to disarm these epistemic traps, some are just more convoluted than others. There are many avenues to answer it, but none quite get to the heart of the issue, except this one.
The idea of this solution to his argument isn’t to present something that’s actually useful in a general purpose, because his argument isn’t; in fact it’s blatantly irrational: Christian morality is not objective (and no morality can be), his definition of objective is abjectly incorrect, and Hitler’s regime was Christian. So, it’s not about putting forth something that’s actually logical, it’s more like a twisted key for a twisted lock; like using metaphorical logic for a metaphorical riddle. I’m meeting him on his own warped plain of reasoning and beating him regardless.
Here’s the handy guide to destroying the argument:
- I have a personal subjective moral system (the one I use in daily life), I invent a theoretical copy of that moral system (called “Copy“).
- Copy has never changed, and will never change. You can be sure of this because it is theoretical and therefore I have complete control of what it is and what it does; I have defined it as static and unchanging, so it is. My own personal moral system could change, and Copy would remain the same.
- Copy meets Fake_Andrew’s requirements for an ‘objective’ moral system (unchanging), which is the same standard he applies to God’s moral system. He lays out this standard in the Fake Debate #2. Even if he changes this standard for objectivity, he cannot propose one that God’s morality meets that I cannot meet simply using a theoretical construct.
- According to Copy, I am morally superior to the Nazis in many obvious ways.
- Andrew cries. Ruh-Fucking-Roh.
I have used Andrew’s own definition of objective to demonstrate that there is an ‘objective’ moral standard (exactly as valid as his God’s moral standard) by which I am morally better than a Nazi.
The most profound representation of the method of this solution is that it sees the backdoor he’s created for himself and uses it too. By creating a logical backdoor (his redefinition of ‘objective’), he’s attempted to unbalance the logical playing field in his favour (because he cannot prevail on an equal playing field), but when I detect the cheat he is using, the trick, the hack, it’s not difficult to figure out how I can use it too, and once I also have access to it, the playing field is levelled again, and the truth tends to make itself known; which results in him being demonstrated to be hilariously wrong… again.
Despite the fact that this argument works flawlessly, it’s possible I might think of another solution in future. I might explain that too, if I do.
If you enjoyed this, please share it with others who have talked with Fake_Andrew! Keep that up, and soon enough, he’ll be forced to be original for once!
Also, whenever he raises the argument again, link him straight here, unless you think you can vocalise the argument better than I have!
Hilariously, even if we permit Andrew’s argument, it doesn’t give him anything real.
The punchline of the argument seems to be: “If you, as an atheist, can’t demonstrate you’re better than a Nazi, then atheism is deficient, lacking a method to define one as superior to Nazis.”
Well… so? Would that make it any less true?
Of course not. It’s just a method to demonise atheism/atheists so he can run back to his Christian hugbox and tell them all how atheists can’t say they’re better than Nazis.
You see, Andrew lies a lot. He’s also in denial that he does it, in fact he doesn’t even address claims that he does, and claims others lie based on assertions of his which are themselves lies. All this said, Andrew is capable of being a nice person – 1 on 1 he was quite amicable, even during the debate. I suspect he’s not sociopathic – he does care about being honest – he’s just very good at deluding himself, so he thinks he isn’t being dishonest. It’s because of this that he needs some way to ‘honestly’ say to his hugbox friends that he got an atheist in an argument, no matter how honest that is, or how effective it was.
Andrew is a dishonest ideologue in denial. He defends a blatantly fantastical belief system because he is good at maintaining that denial, and one of his methods of doing so is convincing himself he can beat atheists; this is why he lies about doing so all the time, and why he uses infantile and ineffective arguments against it. Epistemic traps exist to self-delude, to slow down the opponent.
It all comes back to delusion… the human capacity to latch on to an idea against all reason… no matter which irrational group I’m dealing with, it’s always about cutting through the layers of lies they tell themselves and others. It’s more like psychiatry than debate.
He’s asking me for another debate now… how do you think he’ll do?