‘The short version being that anything not done for the glory of God is not good.’
That’s a circular argument and not worth debating. If you propose that ‘anyone not religious is immoral’, then by definition, any atheist would be immoral.
By the same logic, an atheist could say, ‘anyone who believes in God is stupid’. Therefore, all atheists are smarter than all Christians.
That’s a circular argument and not worth debating. If you propose that ‘anyone not religious is immoral’, then by definition, any atheist would be immoral. By the same logic, an atheist could say, ‘anyone who believes in God is stupid’. Therefore, all atheists are smarter than all Christians.
No, it's not circular in it's entirety. In the short form, it's based on an assumption. That assumption is that anything not of God is not good. This is a point you can either agree with or disagree with. I'm merely pointing out that the assumption stated early in the article *is* debated. Some theologists believe that atheists are incapable of ever being good. That conclusion is rationally drawn from the belief that God is the only source of 'goodness'.