Fun with the "Atheist Killa:" The Suicide Argument

On his page "Creationism and the Origin of Life," which still has just about nothing to do with creationism or the origin of life, Chad Elliott has seemingly moved away from the almost constantly defeated "Elliott Argument" and moved on to what he has dubbed the "Suicide Argument."

The Suicide Argument used to be five parts long, but Mr. Elliott has recently changed it. I would like to claim some part in being one of the factors of his changing it based on my rebuttal that was posted on the Facebook page "Confronting Ignorance in Religion," a rebuttal which appears to be gone now, but I cannot say for certain. Sometimes Mr. Elliott makes it obvious he has read what I write on Facebook, and other times seems to ignore my writings. If I were as intellectually dishonest as Mr. Elliott I would claim that as a victory, since he failed to respond to my rebuttal to him. However, I am not, so I will not.

Now, on to the Suicide Argument.

The Suicide Argument:
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.
C- Atheism is self-defeating


It should be noted that Mr. Elliott appears to not have much interest in actually proving the god he believes in exists, but rather he is focused on trying to prove atheism is irrational and illogical. I assume he gets off on trying to shame others, as his behavior is reminiscent to that of a sociopathic bully.

Breakdown of the Suicide Argument:

"P1- Atheists have to accept that all moral values are subjective"

Right out of the gate and the argument fails to be sound. Mr. Elliott is attempting to force a false dichotomy onto people with this premise. The fact is, atheists do not have to accept that all moral values are subjective. Atheists could select from any number of possible points of origin regarding objective morality that does not come from God.

Possible examples, regardless of the probability of them being true, include:

• Objective morality existing as a sort of Platonic form, eternal and outside of existing, imposing themselves on the realms "below" them. 

• This universe was created by raw potential force from another universe, and a potential morality system was turned actual and written into the fabric of this universe. This idea of morality becomes our objective morality due to the nature of how the universe was created.

• We were genetically engineered by aliens and they developed an objective moral code for us to follow. Not only is this concept at least as plausible as the God concept, I submit to you that this would actually be more plausible than the God idea. Why? We have evidence that both life and genetic engineering is possible in the universe while we have no evidence of a god existing.

The list could go on with all sorts of improbable but technically possible scenarios.

At this point, Mr. Elliott is likely to try and argue that Objective Morality can only come from God, but for this to be a valid claim he would have to prove both God and an objective morality even exist. Then he must prove that only God can provide humans with an objective morality.

In fact, Mr. Elliott's own words suggest objective morality for humans could come from anywhere or anything, as long as it was not from humanity itself, as you can see here:

"P2- If all moral values are subjective, then no action is objectively wrong."

While it does not appear to me to be unsound in and of itself, this premise relies on the first premise being sound and true to move forward. The moment an atheist presents they to believe in an objective belief system then this argument falls apart.

"P3-If no action is objectively wrong, then abolishing atheism all together is not objectively wrong."

Again, this does not appear to me to be unsound by itself, though it suffers the same problem as the second premise, it requires someone accepting subjective morality to move forward. Logistically, however, actually attempting to perform what this action suggests, abolishing atheism completely, would be so improbable you may as well call it impossible. Of course, the logistics of abolishing atheism are irrelevant to this premise.

"C- Atheism is self-defeating"

The conclusion comes out of the blue, and is not all that relevant to the rest of the argument, but it is what it is, I suppose. Of course, even if we assumed the first three premises were sound, the conclusion is illogical. Morality is not an aspect of atheism. Objective, subjective, non-existent; an atheist (or anyone else, including a theist for that matter) could pick any of these as the basis for their personal beliefs regarding the nature of morality. There may be more options than the three I listed, even. The only way atheism could be self-defeating, given what atheism is (a lack of belief in god(s)), would be if atheism proved a god existed, and this argument has nothing to do with proving a god exists.

That said, the conclusion also relies on the first premise being accurate and correct, which I have clearly shown it is not.

Of course, Mr. Elliott also fails to realize that just because a person may believe in objective morality, it does not make it so. Even if this entire argument were sound and true, and it proved that atheism was self-defeating, so what? Atheism would continue to be the only rational position to hold regarding gods, as there is no evidence of any god existing, and anyone holding the view of objective morality would be irrational, as there is no evidence of objective morality.

Look the world over and you will find subjective morality abounds, while there appears to be no hint or sign of objective morality existing. There are people making assertions about objective morality, usually claimed to have been created by a god, but they can neither prove their god exists nor that objective morality exists.

Just as atheism is towards gods, subjective morality appears to be the only logical position regarding the nature of morality one can hold, as based on everything currently known by human kind. That could change tomorrow, but until it does change, believing in objective morality is irrational.