Before embarking on reading this be aware that i am neither anti-atheism or intolerant of atheists,in fact i find many a effective philosophies and arguments as solutions and quips to the conundrum of religion to come from atheists.Also this is not referent to any theistic faith,rather it is just my humble opinion.Lastly i mean in no way to assert that all other proofs of atheism are debunked neither is this to state that theism is irrevocably true,this particularly tackles only this argument.


“All theists alike believe that ‘God’ is on all of our sides (for both our particular and combined betterment) but if you look again you realize that we are all against each other in every manner of speaking.We are all on our own sides and serving our different goals that are vehemently opposed to each other.Therefore how can God be on all these opposing sides?
This serves to illustrate that if ‘he’ is in fact on all these sides then ‘his’ net effect is zero which is tantamount to saying there is no God or maybe that there was once a God that disintegrated into us and therefore he is no more.Like a father bears sons and as soon as he passes on all that is left of him is his sons as he is no more .Or we could go for the most obvious that there was no God now ,before or after and the proof of this pudding is our divergent motives that aren’t in alignment with each others’.Good is only particular and differs from person to person and from epoch to epoch.There is in fact no such thing as common good for that is just a tale spun by the ruling class so as to exact their particular good on the less powerful classes.This often masquerades as law or religion.”


This argument and conclusion is literally word for word what i recorded with an atheist acquaintance whom i very much revere in both rhetoric and opinion as expressed above.He tackled so much in very flowery rhetoric(which i must admit is my drug of choice) and cracked open much of the jargon and then emerged a simplistically elegant account of these beliefs.Very easy on the ears but wrought and mistaken on further inspection and repugnant on application.At least that is what i surmised.

The phrases “we are all against each other” and “we are all on opposing sides” is a classic nominalistic disapproval of its very claim.For if everything is in particular and remarkably different then why ever use the unification term ‘we’ or ‘us’ that presumes an observable similitude between these remarkably different specimens.This can only mean that we are not all against one another or on opposing sides and subtly entertains the thought that we may be on the same side.

The phrases ‘God is on our side’ and ‘if he is in fact on opposing sides’ tacitly enough implies that we precede God.It is us then ‘Him’ which is an utter confusion for by definition and roughly so God is the primary cause of all things.How then can he become an effect of our supposed ‘sides’?

“….there was no God now ,before or after and the proof of this pudding is our divergent motives that aren’t in alignment with each others.”Yet again God is subservient to us and our motives but also there is a suggestion of no free will because God is to blame for all of our actions.Therefore if we are only but agents of our own actions can there be any room for free will?
Yes there can here there is a confusion of foreknowledge and causality.We have the power of causality and God has the power of foreknowledge when it comes to our actions. Boethius explained simply that if there is a God then we are within the wheel of time and he is without meaning though he can see everything and isn’t subject to chronology.Therefore when it comes to our actions we cause them and though ‘He’knows that we will cause them the causing itself is only attributed to us and not ‘Him’ at all

“Good is only particular and differs from person to person…”
This resembles Spinoza who claimed that good is what we desire and since we desire different things our moral codes (which i will define as our ways to get to our good(desires)) must effectively be different.Right?
This slight mistake was birthed by nominalism that presumes indefinite difference in all things.But in fact we do share humanity and therefore we desire things that are good for all of us(needs) and some for just some of us(wants).These needs are universal and obviously pull rank over the wants and needs are always good while wants may just appear to be good.Therefore we should all aspire to the needs and what tells us how is the ‘moral code’ accorded to us by our shared humanness and it doubles up as an inspector to ensure that the wants are not valued higher than the needs at moments of scarcity economically speaking.

There was some reference to history where the man said that historically the particular good of a few has masqueraded as the law or religion,even now this is so.But this is only useful as an empirical induction of the world.
This however can not and should not be extended to the metaphysical which is what we speak of.The common good is a deductionist term that is without the confines of time and cannot be sufficiently supported with empirical observations without mention of rationalistic deductions for its subject matter is predominantly immaterial.Law and religion may be used to bolster or demolish the common good but per se they are not equivalents of it.

Feel free to add or correct anything.



be sure to purge (thoughts,ideas,complaints) if at all you feel the nudge

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