"If Not For Gods/Laws I Would Be Doing X"

I am sure you have come across these kinds of statements before:

If not for god/Jesus/Allah/YHWH I would be out there raping and killing right now.

And the Statist version:

If not for laws passed by the government I would be raping and killing right now.

You sometimes get retorts like this as a knee-jerk reaction to a discussion about gods and the State. In the former, you get this response whenever you try to explain to the theist that there is no such thing as a god in the universe. Even if there was a god (and in particular the Judeo-Christian or Islamic god as described in their books) you could not possibly get moral behavior from a sadistic being that does the exact opposite of what is considered moral behavior, or be restrained from doing immoral things when such a being is said to have done horrible things or even commanded people to do horrible things.

In the latter you get this response whenever any criticism is brought against the State, or when making arguments for voluntary association, or just pointing out the atrocities that the State has committed against peoples.

Firstly, what are the assumptions being made by such a statement? If you have already one of my articles here prior to this post you can guess one of the assumptions:

Assumption: "Without this X that I consider an authority, I would do bad things because I cannot use my own judgment in the absence of such an authority overriding my own judgment."

Quite simply, they make the error of assuming there is such a thing as authority that could override their ability to use their own judgment. They, and only they, can use their own judgment. Because they can use their own judgment such a concept like authority is illogical and invalid. But people still want to renege their responsibility and self-ownership over actions by claiming such an authority (and this case, the absence of authority to command them) is responsible for them doing or not doing immoral  things.

Another assumption, minor as it is, but still important, goes thus:

Assumption: People who are raping and killing right now do so in the absence of said authority.

Now we begin to see this retort of theirs come undone. Obviously, if there was even such an authority that existed to override people's preferences to rape and murder would that authority not then have the power to stop it?

Secondly, would we also expect to see that authority do what it commands should be done? As pointed out above this is not the case.

When the gods act immorally but command a certain morality and when there is a rich history of people committing violence in the name of religion, you cannot seriously argue that there is an authority there stopping you from doing the same harm to others. The religious person has to use their own judgment to determine right from wrong behaviors.

When laws contradict each other all over the world, when the statist doesn't even agree that some laws are even just, when even the statist himself has better morals than a politician (when is the last time you launched an unjust war against some poor nation and bombed the living shit out of innocent men women and children?) one cannot seriously tell me that this group people calling themselves the government is some authority that can override my judgment. Laws are just opinions backed by guns. Even the statist must use their own judgment to determine whether certain laws should be obeyed or not, or whether those laws seem to them to be just or not.

So what do you say to somebody who makes these ridiculous remarks?

1) Are you currently doing said behavior that you claim would be done if gods did not exist to forbid it/a government was not around to pass laws against it? 

Most likely if they are making a response to you like "if not for gods/laws I would be doing X" we can assume they are otherwise moral people. They want to make you think that if you took away their belief in X authority that they would all of a sudden engage in immoral behavior or would want to engage in such immoral behavior.

But when they think there is such an authority present they still use their own judgment to think they ought to follow the dictates of such an authority, and are constantly evaluating whether they agree or disagree.

2) Do you use your own judgment at all times?


If they answer no to the this question they have trapped themselves. You can also see the previous mentioned article on this to find out why it would be self-detonating statement to claim that I do not use my own judgement.

But you could also ask the following questions that will, of course, require them to use their own judgment anyway: What if the bible was written by Satan, is it? , If there was an unjust law would you then have to follow that law? , The State has done X, and resulted in thousands of innocent killed, is this appropriate behavior? What happens when you disagree with gods/governments?


Point being that the statist/religious person would have to use their judgment in answering all of the above questions even though they claim gods/governments are authorities. If they really were authorities you would not have a choice in the matter, but you clearly do.

Most people by now will have dropped out of the conversation now that you have dealt with their attempt at stopping the conversation. But a few people may still linger around with some curiosity. This is good! This could lead to a conversation about how does one go about dealing with immorality given that gods/governments cannot stop such behavior and the like.

Once everyone understands that we all have no choice but to use our own judgment and that this very fact debunks the notion of any authority, only then can the conversation continue.