Bad Atheist Arguments

pearsquasher

I've been looking at a lot of debates recently with the usual suspects, Dannet, Dawkins, Harris , Hitchens, Baker etc

I've gone from Harris<Dannet<Baker in terms of favorite...


One thing that bothers me aside from the utter fantasy of the theists is some of the arguments the atheists put forward.

For example, they argue that when theists seek for a designer just because the universe is complicated, they say "who designed the designer then?". No-one seems point out, on the god-side , that god, by the usual wildcard definition of omnipotence, doesn't need one - and THAT isn't even pointed out by the theists. It annoys me!

Any other atheist arguments not thought out properly?

Penn

pearsquasher wrote: »

For example, they argue that when theists seek for a designer just because the universe is complicated, they say "who designed the designer then?". No-one seems point out, on the god-side , that god, by the usual wildcard definition of omnipotence, doesn't need one - and THAT isn't even pointed out by the theists. It annoys me!

From what I can see, that normally comes about in response to a theist argument and is used to highlight hypocrisy in their argument. Example:

Theist: Even if the Big Bang was true, what was before that? You can't create something out of nothing. Everything needs a creator.
Atheist: If everything needs a creator, who created God?
Theist: God is eternal

It isn't really used as an argument in itself, it's used to show how theists try to point out flaws in science, yet abandon those same parameters when making their own argument.

coffee_cake

Bad atheists, bad! :mad:


I don't think omnipotence is a get out clause if you're insisting everything needed an initial condition. Once you're into that circle, it can keep going back and "but god" isn't the answer. It's just arbitrarily picking a starting point

b318isp

I find the that it is really important to say "I don't know" or "it is unlikely that mankind can answer that with the knowledge it has now or is likely to have in the near future" rather than getting into pre big-bang arguments.

If I try to discuss the question of what happened prior to and at the instant of the big bang, I just sprout rubbish - so I avoid any explanation nowadays. Of course, the "why is there something rather than nothing, the "what is force/energy/matter/time" and "what is the universe expanding into" questions are very valid and are being answered by Quantum and String Theories from a few nanoseconds onwards.

It is logical to consider a "supernatural" cause (as in something outside the laws of nature as perceived by man at this point in time) at the moment of the initiation of the big bang, based on the argument is that cosmology itself is the prima facie evidence. Rather than debate this, I feel it is better to leave it lie - a theist is likely to attribute this to a god, for atheists it is simply an unanswered question.

Dades

pearsquasher wrote: »

For example, they argue that when theists seek for a designer just because the universe is complicated, they say "who designed the designer then?".

Okay... not seeing a problem with this so far...

pearsquasher wrote: »

No-one seems point out, on the god-side , that god, by the usual wildcard definition of omnipotence, doesn't need one - and THAT isn't even pointed out by the theists. It annoys me!

Loads of conversations have been had here where theists have applied flawed logic.

- It's complicated, therefore it is designed.
- Is God not complicated?
- Why do you hate baby Jesus?!

Still don't see why it's flawed to point out that people are required to apply the same reason inwards they apply outwards.

Zombrex

pearsquasher wrote: »

I've been looking at a lot of debates recently with the usual suspects, Dannet, Dawkins, Harris , Hitchens, Baker etc

I've gone from Harris<Dannet<Baker in terms of favorite...


One thing that bothers me aside from the utter fantasy of the theists is some of the arguments the atheists put forward.

For example, they argue that when theists seek for a designer just because the universe is complicated, they say "who designed the designer then?". No-one seems point out, on the god-side , that god, by the usual wildcard definition of omnipotence, doesn't need one - and THAT isn't even pointed out by the theists. It annoys me!

Any other atheist arguments not thought out properly?

There certainly are bad arguments for atheism.

But equally often the "bad" arguments for atheism are actually just a reflection of goal post shifting from theists.

For example the "Who designed the designer arguments", or "Who caused the first cause" that Christians delight in saying "God is defined as not needing a designer and being timeless" are not really bad atheist arguments.

The atheist arguments only originated in the first place because Christians claimed that anything complex like the universe required a designer and required a cause.

They can claim that God doesn't require a designer or require a cause, but that simply invalidates their original argument. If God doesn't need this why does the universe need it? You cannot say that the universe must require a designer and then when someone says "Who designed the designer" smugly say that God doesn't require a designer.

Theists used to say that everything that exists requires a creator. When atheists said Who created God, theists just changed what they were saying to everything that begins to exist requires a creator, and since God is defined (by them) as to have not begun to exist he doesn't require a creator. Which is just a way of saying we were originally wrong, but we think we got it now :rolleyes:

So it is always remembering when countering theist arguments that theists probably don't understand their own arguments, and have no issue shifting the goal posts half way through the discussion.

Just saying

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Dades wrote: »

Loads of conversations have been had here where theists have applied flawed logic.

- It's complicated, therefore it is designed.
- Is God not complicated?
- Why do you hate baby Jesus?!

Still don't see why it's flawed to point out that people are required to apply the same reason inwards they apply outwards.

I suspect that what the OP may be getting at is the theist argument should be along the lines that you can't have the world sitting on an infinite amount of turtles. At some stage, you must encounter the turtle that's the daddy of them all, and he has to be unique in his daddy-ness.

An alternative answer might be "God may be complicated, but that complexity is of secondary importance to the unique quality of being the source of all complication". (Is that too complicated?)

Now, that said, I've always thought this just brings us to a mild adjustment of our original point. Firstly, maybe there just is an infinite amount of turtles. There's no particular reason for turtles to have a limit, that I can think of. But even if we allow an assumption to be made that the Universe and whatever caused the Universe to be has some limit, there's still no reason to regard that first cause as divine.

However, tbh, I'd feel this whole argument is in the wrong space. I very much doubt that many people decide to follow a religion because they think this or that creation tale is particularly convincing. People adhere to a religion (I think) because it expresses a set of values and/or a conception of what it means to be human that they feel is life-enhancing.

Gbear

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

However, tbh, I'd feel this whole argument is in the wrong space. I very much doubt that many people decide to follow a religion because they think this or that creation tale is particularly convincing. People adhere to a religion (I think) because it expresses a set of values and/or a conception of what it means to be human that they feel is life-enhancing.

Or, I suspect, because they'e been inculcated from an early age, the religion shapes their set of values (and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of fulfillment). So, for example, they feel really good when people pray for them because they've been taught from a very early age to feel that way.

Also, other values that don't quite square with their beliefs are shoe-horned in anyway, with some neat compartmentalisation.

To put it another way, it's pretty rare that people have a set of values and then go religion hunting for what suits them best.

pH

pearsquasher wrote: »

For example, they argue that when theists seek for a designer just because the universe is complicated, they say "who designed the designer then?". No-one seems point out, on the god-side , that god, by the usual wildcard definition of omnipotence, doesn't need one - and THAT isn't even pointed out by the theists. It annoys me!

But this is a nonsensical "argument by definition" - everything needs a creator except things we define as not needing one. TaDa! - the universe was created by the only thing that didn't need to be created -God!

Much simpler (if we're not interested in actually finding out about the universe) to define the universe as not needing to be created.

I don't see what's wrong with this argument - if theists want to define God as not needing a creator (it's not like it's backed up by anything like evidence - it literally is just something they made up) - while it may not be scientifically valid, nor indeed intellectually very stimulating, it's an entirely reasonable rebuttal in the context and rules of their "proof by definition" argument.

ShooterSF

Gbear wrote: »

To put it another way, it's pretty rare that people have a set of values and then go religion hunting for what suits them best.

Even, as is going on in Ireland at the moment, going as far as trying to change the religion they follow's values to match theirs rather than changing religion!

nozzferrahhtoo

pearsquasher wrote: »

For example, they argue that when theists seek for a designer just because the universe is complicated, they say "who designed the designer then?". No-one seems point out, on the god-side , that god, by the usual wildcard definition of omnipotence, doesn't need one - and THAT isn't even pointed out by the theists. It annoys me!

Any other atheist arguments not thought out properly?

I am not sure that it is that the atheist arguments here are bad or not well thought out. There is a saying that if you argue with an idiot you will come out looking like an idiot too. Similarly the counter arguments to really bad arguments are frequently going to look similarly bad.

It is not that the arguments are bad but that the level they are pitched at it already low on the scale. When we go down to their level we look like we are at their level too.

The argument you mention above for example from theists is really poor. Postulating a designer to explain away complexity does in no way explain complexity. It just moves all the same questions one level further up the scale and leaves them unanswered.

The theist move then, as you point out, is to simply define themselves to be correct by declaring based on nothing at all, that the designer itself is automatically magically exempt from those questions in a move that is begging the question, special pleading and confirmation bias all rolled into one.

sbsquarepants

pearsquasher wrote: »

For example, they argue that when theists seek for a designer just because the universe is complicated, they say "who designed the designer then?". No-one seems point out, on the god-side , that god, by the usual wildcard definition of omnipotence, doesn't need one - and THAT isn't even pointed out by the theists. It annoys me!

Any other atheist arguments not thought out properly?

It's been said already, but there is nothing inherently bad or flawed about that argument. Either you accept everything needs a creator - which is logically impossible as there then has to be a starting point somewhere that defies that law, or you accept that something can come from nothing.
It seems like sense to me, to argue that to design and build something, you must be in some way "superior" to it. If the universe is too complicated to just happen, then whatever made it must be more complicated and therefore also too complicated to just happen. If the more complicated thing doesn't require a manufacturer, why does the less so? What's ill thought out about that?

silentrust

Well said chief,

Theists often act smug when we admit there currently isn't a scientific explanation for something, which of course means God must have done it. Isn't this called the God of the Gaps argument? :-)

b318isp wrote: »

I find the that it is really important to say "I don't know" or "it is unlikely that mankind can answer that with the knowledge it has now or is likely to have in the near future" rather than getting into pre big-bang arguments.

If I try to discuss the question of what happened prior to and at the instant of the big bang, I just sprout rubbish - so I avoid any explanation nowadays. Of course, the "why is there something rather than nothing, the "what is force/energy/matter/time" and "what is the universe expanding into" questions are very valid and are being answered by Quantum and String Theories from a few nanoseconds onwards.

It is logical to consider a "supernatural" cause (as in something outside the laws of nature as perceived by man at this point in time) at the moment of the initiation of the big bang, based on the argument is that cosmology itself is the prima facie evidence. Rather than debate this, I feel it is better to leave it lie - a theist is likely to attribute this to a god, for atheists it is simply an unanswered question.

sbsquarepants

b318isp wrote: »

It is logical to consider a "supernatural" cause (as in something outside the laws of nature as perceived by man at this point in time) at the moment of the initiation of the big bang, based on the argument is that cosmology itself is the prima facie evidence. Rather than debate this, I feel it is better to leave it lie - a theist is likely to attribute this to a god, for atheists it is simply an unanswered question.

And to slightly extend your point. We'll probably never have all the answers as each new answer invariably leads to a raft of new questions. But for all the answers we have found ( i say we, but if i'm honest i haven't found any of them:D) magic has rarely turned out to be a key ingredient!
What is so scary about the phrase "i don't know"? It's a perfectly valid answer to a lot of difficult questions. I can't grasp the mindset that feels the need for certainty so badly that even clearly fake certainty will do. It's baffling.

MrPudding

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I suspect that what the OP may be getting at is the theist argument should be along the lines that you can't have the world sitting on an infinite amount of turtles. At some stage, you must encounter the turtle that's the daddy of them all, and he has to be unique in his daddy-ness.

There is no daddy turtle, it's turtles all the way down.

MrP

b318isp

...ooh, one more thing - sometimes it is better to substitute the word "science" for "knowledge" (being mindful of the trap that can be used of there being various kinds of knowledge). Some people have a misconception or don't trust science (quite likely because they simply don't understand it) so it can pull a discussion off course.

It's not that science is a bad argument, but it is often better to push a discussion in the direction of what is intrinsically right/wrong, or based on best current knowledge/evidance - depending on who you are talking with of course.

ibstar

I as an Atheist(broken away form a Muslim family but had pagan religion views myself) accept that in our given galaxy and galaxies around us that we can physically see(notice in our given),something-A creates something-B (talking about big bang here and evolution) and so on. But that something-A was created by something-X and X was created by something-n and so on. This to our human knowledge is called infinity. And since infinity can't be ever completely understood, comprehended and imagined by our grey matter, people resort to things like religion for an easy answer that God was the creator and that him being the ultimate being, he does not need a creator.
When asked where does God sit/float to watch over us ( I say us, because a lot of Theists wouldn't accept that apart from us, there's other creatures in this universe). To this they answer that he is everywhere and inside us giving us guidance etc.
This is when I drop Bill Maher's Santa Claus joke, which usually seals the deal.

pearsquasher

Thanks all..... I take the points that the theists "creator doesn't need a creator" argument is logically flawed and the atheist can't "win" against it because of that - even more now, thanks. Just wasn't sure how logiclly flawed it was even if circular.

Another point I never hear is that cellular automota, especially Conways Game of Life are a decent provable and demonstrable replication of complexity emerging from simple rules of replication, absorption and death. Depending on initial conditions you can show apparent intelligent structure emerge that do the strangest liveliest things. Simply show them that in one of the debates... simples.

Zombrex

pearsquasher wrote: »

Thanks all..... I take the points that the theists "creator doesn't need a creator" argument is logically flawed and the atheist can't "win" against it because of that - even more now, thanks. Just wasn't sure how logiclly flawed it was even if circular.

Another point I never hear is that cellular automota, especially Conways Game of Life are a decent provable and demonstrable replication of complexity emerging from simple rules of replication, absorption and death. Depending on initial conditions you can show apparent intelligent structure emerge that do the strangest liveliest things. Simply show them that in one of the debates... simples.

This is one of the biggest flaws with theist thinking (apologies for slight OT, I know you were looking for flawed atheist arguments )

Theists claim they have trouble just accepting that a complex universe can just exist. This fits with the human way of thinking that complex things are produced by some process.

But they have little trouble imagining God just exists. This is because they view God in a different fashion, they view God as merely an answer, not something that requires a question in of itself. Apparently this is also how we view our parents, we naturally view our parents as "things" that have always been there. We don't think of our parents as people with childhoods and growth.

Of course if you think about it if this complex requires an explanation for why it exists that is more than "just because", then a being intelligent to knowingly produce and sustain this universe must also demand an explanation for how he can "just" exist.

But because theists view God as the ultimate "parent" being this realisation seems to wash totally over their head. Of course God doesn't need an explanation, he is the answer not the question, they might say.

Which again just speaks to the psychological process going on in the mind of a theist as to what role God fills for them. It has little if anything to do with actual logical reasoning.

pearsquasher

I agree and thinks it's so obvious I really don't get the theist at all. I'm waiting for the theist that seems reasonable but haven't even seen one in any of the debates yet. They just seem "ranty" and sort of immature.

nagirrac

I think the worst atheist arguments are those by strong atheists who use sweeping generalizations or the fallacy of Dicto simpliciter for those who like a bit of Latin. I do not believe most posters on this forum are strong atheists, but occasionally you see examples of this.

One example is the idea that religion has been responsible for most war and evil in history, Dawkins in the preface of his book reels off lots of examples, many of which were ethnic rather than religious conflicts. Any 12 year old with even a cursory knowledge of history can point out this fallacy, the reality is that the worst excesses in human history occurred when the concept of a supernatural God was replaced by a human God. Strong atheists dislike this argument but the reality is that regimes that actively suppressed religion massacred their own populations in numbers that vastly outnumber democratic countries that retained freedom of religion. While it is easy to say that could never happen now, sadly that is a view that has been held historically during times of relative calm and economic prosperity with very often tragic aftermath. We should never forget what humans are capable of when in the thrall of a charismatic leader (including religious leaders).

The second fallacy is I believe misrepresenting why people are religious or spiritual. Many atheists seem preoccupied with the Old Testament for example, as if Christians today believe in stoning people to death, an eye for an eye, etc. Now there are such people, but in the main humans participate in religion for the experience and not because of belief in some ancient text. It is more about community, belonging to something, shared values, life having purpose, and not about what some mystic on magic mushrooms wrote 4,000 years ago. Atheists seem far more knowledgeable on what is written in these texts than religious, think about what that means logically and rationally. It is a straw man argument as the people you are arguing with regard the texts in the main as allegorical descriptions of a supernatural world and not literally the world they live in.

On the question of the origin of the universe, the scientific answer is we do not know. The known laws of physics break down at Planck time, so anything proposed before that is conjecture. The universe by definition had a supernatural origin, as the knowledge of what it arose from is outside our current understanding of nature. Most people, including many scientists, call this God; some people, including some scientists, believe we are in a simulation; some people, including some scientists, believe there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in this one. Whether atheists like the answer or not, the simplest answer for most people is God, as the alternative is "I don't know and thinking about it makes my head hurt".

What religion needs to do is adapt and become relevant to modern society, as many Christian churches have done in fairness. Fundamentalist religions and beliefs such as the religious right in the US, Catholicism and much of Islam cannot go the way of the dodo soon enough for humanity's sake.

ibstar

@nagirrac nice post m8.

You and I both know religion will never try to adapt to the relevant society as this is a rather submissive act, whilst it's role is to impose it's teachings and try and convince the believer to embrace these teachings as the ultimate truth. Different path, same result, same ideology.

b318isp

nagirrac wrote: »

One example is the idea that religion has been responsible for most war and evil in history, Dawkins in the preface of his book reels off lots of examples, many of which were ethnic rather than religious conflicts. Any 12 year old with even a cursory knowledge of history can point out this fallacy, the reality is that the worst excesses in human history occurred when the concept of a supernatural God was replaced by a human God. Strong atheists dislike this argument but the reality is that regimes that actively suppressed religion massacred their own populations in numbers that vastly outnumber democratic countries that retained freedom of religion. While it is easy to say that could never happen now, sadly that is a view that has been held historically during times of relative calm and economic prosperity with very often tragic aftermath. We should never forget what humans are capable of when in the thrall of a charismatic leader (including religious leaders).

It should be pointed that out that evil and violence were a daily fact of life as human behaviours were governed by superstition, supernaturalism (incl. religion) and self served justice. The crusades and the inquisition were key religious strategies which caused atrocities which were proportionally some of the worst in history.

It is the establishment of leviathan government, democracy and positive sum commerce since the age of enlightenment that has given rise to stability in developed nations.

Autocracies and theocracies have been the main drivers of violence - and continue to be in most of the conflicts in existence today.

pH

b318isp wrote: »

It should be pointed that out that evil and violence were a daily fact of life as human behaviours were governed by superstition, supernaturalism (incl. religion) and self served justice. The crusades and the inquisition were key religious strategies which caused atrocities which were proportionally some of the worst in history.

It is the establishment of leviathan government, democracy and positive sum commerce since the age of enlightenment that has given rise to stability in developed nations.

Autocracies and theocracies have been the main drivers of violence - and continue to be in most of the conflicts in existence today.

Yes it's worth mentioning that the key things which explain these huge death tolls for "non theist" regimes are the much larger populations that existed and the newly invented mechanized warfare.

As horrifically awful as say Hitler's treatment of the Jewish people was, there are many Old Testament references to what can only be described as "final solutions" for conquered peoples and cities.

Galvasean

Indeed. Imagine somebody like Gengis Khan with 21st Century tech! :eek:

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

Indeed. Imagine somebody like Gengis Khan with 21st Century tech! :eek:

We'd all be his descendents. Open to correction on this but isn't there like a claim that 12% of all Asians are direct descendents of Genghis Khan? Such was the proportion of people he both raped and exterminated.

Brian Shanahan

pH wrote: »

Yes it's worth mentioning that the key things which explain these huge death tolls for "non theist" regimes are the much larger populations that existed and the newly invented mechanized warfare.

As horrifically awful as say Hitler's treatment of the Jewish people was, there are many Old Testament references to what can only be described as "final solutions" for conquered peoples and cities.

Another thing to point out is that few of the "non theist" regimes were actually non-theist, for example, both the Nazis and the Fascists were deeply christian parties and regimes. And even in the truly non-theist regimes the leaders generally were set up as god-manqué, e.g. Stalin in the USSR or Mao in China. The "evil because godless" argument simply does not wash.

nagirrac

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Another thing to point out is that few of the "non theist" regimes were actually non-theist, for example, both the Nazis and the Fascists were deeply christian parties and regimes. And even in the truly non-theist regimes the leaders generally were set up as god-manqué, e.g. Stalin in the USSR or Mao in China. The "evil because godless" argument simply does not wash.

An estimated 99% of Germans were Christian in the 1930s (less than 1% were Jews), so it is unsurprising that the Nazi party was comprised of Christians. The Nazis were deeply racist and anti-Semitic, and there is no doubt their "faith" influenced their anti-Semitism. Economic conditions in Germany in the 1930 were a much bigger factor in the hatred towards Jews, and this is what the Nazis exploited in their sweep to power.

There is nothing wrong with voluntary godlessness, and I agree no credible link between "Godless", as in atheist, and evil. However, there is a link between regimes that actively suppress religion, replace belief in a supernatural God with a man God, and seemingly convince their followers relatively easily to massacre their fellow citizens. Blind faith in any authority, whether religion or government, is the root of most evil.

robindch

nagirrac wrote: »

However, there is a link between regimes that actively suppress religion, replace belief in a supernatural God with a man God, and seemingly convince their followers relatively easily to massacre their fellow citizens. Blind faith in any authority, whether religion or government, is the root of most evil.

Political totalitarianism, and particularly, the wishes of most or all totalitarianisms to wipe out competing totalitarianisms, is the root of most or all of the evil you're referring to.

It has nothing to do specifically with deities, though historically, most of the world's totalitarianisms have legitimized themselves using deistic logic. The 20th century's unique contribution was to develop totalitarianisms that were non-deistic. But they remained totalitarian and that's where the problem was. Not the fact of their non-deism.

joseph brand

nagirrac wrote: »

The second fallacy is I believe misrepresenting why people are religious or spiritual.

Indoctrination?

nagirrac wrote: »

Many atheists seem preoccupied with the Old Testament for example, as if Christians today believe in stoning people to death, an eye for an eye, etc. Now there are such people, but in the main humans participate in religion for the experience and not because of belief in some ancient text. It is more about community, belonging to something, shared values, life having purpose, and not about what some mystic on magic mushrooms wrote 4,000 years ago. Atheists seem far more knowledgeable on what is written in these texts than religious, think about what that means logically and rationally. It is a straw man argument as the people you are arguing with regard the texts in the main as allegorical descriptions of a supernatural world and not literally the world they live in.

I'm fairly certain that the 'body of christ' aka communion is literally the flesh of jesus, a product of the process of transmogrefication or something. According to the Vatican. Are you saying that moses didn't part the sea, there was no Ark, or Garden of Eden? Most Irish catholics haven't a clue what's in the bible, which the church would accept is a fairly important book, for them.

nagirrac wrote: »

What religion needs to do is adapt and become relevant to modern society, as many Christian churches have done in fairness. Fundamentalist religions and beliefs such as the religious right in the US, Catholicism and much of Islam cannot go the way of the dodo soon enough for humanity's sake.

We have seen 'modern' churches in the US. The mega churches with their glitzy, Rolex-wearing pastors, smiling through fake pearly whites, buying up properties and private jets.

No. 1: Lakewood Church
Houston, Texas

Pastor: Joel Osteen
Average weekly attendance: 43,500
Annual budget: $70 million

With the largest megachurch in the country, pastor and televangelist Joel Osteen reaches some 7 million television viewers in the U.S. with his "Christian light"-style message, which is broadcast to more than 100 countries. Since his father, the church's former pastor, died in 1999, Osteen has grown the nondenominational church seven times over, reflecting the demographics of its diverse home city. Osteen, who preaches about the positives in life, has made millions from his inspirational books. Osteen deflects notions that a pastor should be poor, says more riches means greater influence for ministry. He and his wife, Victoria, are the largest donors to Lakewood.

Well, fancy that. I suppose 'himself upstairs' told Joel that he deserves all the money that the suckers faithful can afford to give.

nagirrac

robindch wrote: »

Political totalitarianism, and particularly, the wishes of most or all totalitarianisms to wipe out competing totalitarianisms, is the root of most or all of the evil you're referring to.

It has nothing to do specifically with deities, though historically, most of the world's totalitarianisms have legitimized themselves using deistic logic. The 20th century's unique contribution was to develop totalitarianisms that were non-deistic. But they remained totalitarian and that's where the problem was. Not the fact of their non-deism.

I agree, the combination of absolute power (one party state) with an absolutist ideology (Marxist-Leninism) was responsible for the great majority of internal state massacres in the 20th century. Part of this ideology was removing religion as it was a threat to the absolute power of the cult leader. Prior to this there is no doubt the Catholic Church were the worst offenders. There is an argument to be made that absolutist ideology is more dangerous than absolute power, as it can easily be manipulated to create enemies of the state, and they can be anyone or for any reason, not just competing totalitarians. At least with absolute power there is the chance of a benevolent dictator or monarchy.