The Moral Appeal of Theism and Its Simplicity

During my discussions with theists, I usually find that they try to sway me with ethics. They ask me questions that try to play with my emotions, and they often do. I know the routine responses to these questions, and I use them in my defense. Although I do believe they work I would like to explore responses that will make the theist think I make sense rather than think I am crazy.

But this brings me to my question, is theism an easier position to defend? From most debates I have seen between a theist and atheist, the theist usually seems to have the edge. The atheist has to explain why there is morals, why there is something rather than nothing, ect. That takes a whole lot longer to explain than God did it. That explanation often frustrates me, especially when theists are satisfied with ‘poof, magic’ being a good enough explanation.

Bringing me back to my original story, about a month ago when I was experimenting with desirism to some friends(which failed miserably) they demanded me to explain why there is nothing wrong with murder. Before I started, I asked them the same thing. The answer is incredibly easy to answer as a theist, murder is wrong because it is contrary to God’s nature. I find this explanation to be akin to murder is wrong because unicorns fly. Are humans really satisfied with this being the reason? Do we really need a magical sky genie to tell us what is right and wrong? I don’t think so.

Some theists disagree, and cannot seem to grasp that right and wrong can in fact exist outside of theism(a position accepted by millions). No matter how many different theories or explanations you bring up they will not accept it until a magical sky fairy is brought into the conversation. Now this is where morals start to make sense!

I admit that this is perhaps by most bias blog post yet, and can even be considered a little offensive. But I really don’t know any other way to spell this out to theists. I find ‘God did it’ to be the absolute worst explanation on the face of the Earth. It is not easy, it cannot be tested, it meets all of the requirements of a terrible explanation.

This entry was posted in Atheism, Bad Arguments, Ethics, God, Theism. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Moral Appeal of Theism and Its Simplicity

  1. Nocterro says:

    I’m a theist.

    Murder is necessarily wrong. It would be wrong even if God did not exist.

  2. Nocterro says:

    Just because of the nature of murder.

    Why does 2+2 equal 4?

  3. But why is that nature considered bad?

  4. Nocterro says:

    For the same reason the statement “2+2=4” is considered true. The statement “Murder is wrong” is just true. Asking why is like asking why God exists, or why squares have four sides. It’s just necessarily true; it requires no explanation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s