I am new but think I have the best argument for atheism

[Jrouche]

---

This argument only works if you are intelligent and well-educated, and you must be honest with yourself. This argument is great because it can refute any religion.
Okay. Imagine we are having a relaxed open and honest discussion with eachother. We have a huge stack of index cards. On each card is one of 1000 different religions, gods or belief systems from the present and past. But none of the cards have your religion on it.  I read the belief and all the arguments for it off of each card. Supposed holy books, witnesses, prophets, testimonies, eye-witness accounts, archeological evidence, ect. You tell me all the reasons you dismiss each argument. After we are a quarter of the way through something interesting happens. We no longer have to come up with new reasons to dismiss the ideas we can just refer back to previous cards. We get to the end of the stack, and surprise! Your belief is written on the last card. We could easily refute your belief by reffering back to previous cards.

---

It's more of a method then an arguement, and it's a bit gish gallop, IMO. It's also a bit of a Hasty Generalization. If your argument were stronger it could be done without the gish gallop, see min's pot.

Hello,

Welcome aboard. Hopefully you can use this forum as a place in which you can sharpen your debating and argument-presenting skills.

I think that currently the best argument for atheism isn't just to refute anyone's beliefs just for the sake of it.

The best argument in my opinion is that if we don't do something about the stronghold that Monotheistic religions enjoy and enforce today, then we can never even hope to solve violently urgent matters such as over-population, climate-change and the rapid expenditure of fossil fuels with no Plan B in sight.

Some people would argue that any of the above could be even more pressing than religion itself, claiming that religion is "harmless" and merely a means for the masses to seek comfort and a sense of belonging in something bigger than themselves. The problem is, solving *any* of the aforementioned problems means letting go of religion first, and in the most expeditious manner possible.

Lastly, may I suggest a text-color other than pink ? Took a while to make out what you wrote there.

If your strongest argument against religion is that it causes problems "we can never even hope to solve violently urgent matters such as over-population, climate-change and the rapid expenditure of fossil fuels with no Plan B in sight "  in modern times, you might have an issue there. Aside from the false cause fallacy, it reads more like an appeal to pitty. Religion is fairly "harmless" currently and can be a means for the masses to seek comfort and a sense of belonging in something bigger than themselves. It, historically, has been quite harmful. It currently uses it's position to influence governments and protect the abuses of children. I'd bet there are other societal structures that are more damaging in the modern era.

---

Thanks for the response. Sorry, I didn't know I was writing in pink. How do I change that?

[tackattack]

like you just did (which wasn't in pink) . Here's a link to the BB guide https://atheistforums.org/thread-3560.html - For Clarity it wasn't you but GodlessGirl that was in pink

[Jrouche]

It's more of a method then an arguement, and it's a bit gish gallop, IMO. It's also a bit of a Hasty Generalization. If your argument were stronger it could be done without the gish gallop, see min's pot.
If your strongest argument against religion is that it causes problems "we can never even hope to solve violently urgent matters such as over-population, climate-change and the rapid expenditure of fossil fuels with no Plan B in sight "  in modern times, you might have an issue there. Aside from the false cause fallacy, it reads more like an appeal to pitty. Religion is fairly "harmless" currently and can be a means for the masses to seek comfort and a sense of belonging in something bigger than themselves. It, historically, has been quite harmful. It currently uses it's position to influence governments and protect the abuses of children. I'd bet there are other societal structures that are more damaging in the modern era.

---

Thanks for the response. Sorry, I didn't know I was writing in pink. How do I change that?

Tack, here is what he wrote last in its entirety. Please forgive its length. I argued for the cave painting was done by humans and gave all the evidence that this was the best plausible answer given--arceological evidence, humans paint/draw, tools etc. He wrote----

Even in the absence of other examples from that time period, the surrounding area, or on the entire continent for that matter, who would be so obtuse as to suggest that a cave wall drawing, regardless of how remotely isolated it may be, had a non-intelligent cause? But that appears to be what you are saying: Because you have no apparent evidence for an intelligent cause, other than the existence of the universe and life itself, a non-intelligent cause must be assumed. How utterly irrational is that? The only way a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life can be challenged at all is if there could be found a non- intelligent source that can be demonstrated to cause effects of that kind/class (information rich with specified complexity). Since there are no known non-intelligent sources that can demonstrate causing effects of that kind/class (even a simple cave wall drawing), intelligence stands alone as the highest probable cause for the origin of the universe and life.
It is patently false to insist that a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life has been refuted or proved incorrect Cite the refutation or proof.
Perhaps another example would be helpful. Suppose one day earth detects a repeating signal every ten minutes from deep space, from a source pinpointed to a distant galaxy, and the repeating signal is composed of nothing more than the first 50 prime numbers. Having absolutely zero information regarding the source, other than the signal itself, would you infer a non-intelligent cause for the signal or a possible, if not likely, intelligent cause? What information would you need to know about the source of the signal in order to logically and rationally infer a possible, if not probable, intelligent cause? Answer: Nothing! The specific nature and identity of the source is irrelevant given what we know of the effect itself: the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes. Period.
The only thing that would challenge an inferred intelligent cause (but couldn't eliminate it) would be to identify a non-intelligent source that can demonstrate the ability to cause effects of that kind/class. When you can identify one, let me know. Until then, here's the syllogism:
1. Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity 2. The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3. Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe and life.
In order to "refute" this, as you claim, one or the other premises must be shown to be false, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. A "pond" does not exhibit information rich specified complexity. Do you not see the difference between an effect caused by a non-intelligent cause (nature) and one that is the exclusive effect of an intelligent cause? The pond can be caused by mindless, undirected natural processes or by an intelligent cause, but a cave wall drawing can never be the effect of a mindless, undirected natural process, but only by an intelligence.
Hide or report this
•

[Acrobat]

This argument only works if you are intelligent and well-educated, and you must be honest with yourself. This argument is great because it can refute any religion.
Okay. Imagine we are having a relaxed open and honest discussion with eachother. We have a huge stack of index cards. On each card is one of 1000 different religions, gods or belief systems from the present and past. But none of the cards have your religion on it.  I read the belief and all the arguments for it off of each card. Supposed holy books, witnesses, prophets, testimonies, eye-witness accounts, archeological evidence, ect. You tell me all the reasons you dismiss each argument. After we are a quarter of the way through something interesting happens. We no longer have to come up with new reasons to dismiss the ideas we can just refer back to previous cards. We get to the end of the stack, and surprise! Your belief is written on the last card. We could easily refute your belief by reffering back to previous cards.

What happens when all the cards have different elements of your religion in it? Rather than noting just where they differ you consider where they're similar? 

Like the parable about the blind men who encounter an elephant, touching different parts of it. If considering the differences it's easy to mistake it as perceptions of entirely different things, when in reality its just one thing. All the card reveals perspectives of men trying to describe the divine, the meaning that pervades the world, and their lives, a sense of the sacred. They all agree that there's something more to all of this the sum of it's parts. And like them I agree.

[Mister Agenda]

Welcome to the forum. You make an interesting point, IMHO.

[tackattack]

---

Thanks for the response. Sorry, I didn't know I was writing in pink. How do I change that?

Tack, here is what he wrote last in its entirety. Please forgive its length. I argued for the cave painting was done by humans and gave all the evidence that this was the best plausible answer given--arceological evidence, humans paint/draw, tools etc. He wrote----

Even in the absence of other examples from that time period, the surrounding area, or on the entire continent for that matter, who would be so obtuse as to suggest that a cave wall drawing, regardless of how remotely isolated it may be, had a non-intelligent cause? But that appears to be what you are saying: Because you have no apparent evidence for an intelligent cause, other than the existence of the universe and life itself, a non-intelligent cause must be assumed. How utterly irrational is that? The only way a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life can be challenged at all is if there could be found a non- intelligent source that can be demonstrated to cause effects of that kind/class (information rich with specified complexity). Since there are no known non-intelligent sources that can demonstrate causing effects of that kind/class (even a simple cave wall drawing), intelligence stands alone as the highest probable cause for the origin of the universe and life.
It is patently false to insist that a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life has been refuted or proved incorrect Cite the refutation or proof.
Perhaps another example would be helpful. Suppose one day earth detects a repeating signal every ten minutes from deep space, from a source pinpointed to a distant galaxy, and the repeating signal is composed of nothing more than the first 50 prime numbers. Having absolutely zero information regarding the source, other than the signal itself, would you infer a non-intelligent cause for the signal or a possible, if not likely, intelligent cause? What information would you need to know about the source of the signal in order to logically and rationally infer a possible, if not probable, intelligent cause? Answer: Nothing! The specific nature and identity of the source is irrelevant given what we know of the effect itself: the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes. Period.
The only thing that would challenge an inferred intelligent cause (but couldn't eliminate it) would be to identify a non-intelligent source that can demonstrate the ability to cause effects of that kind/class. When you can identify one, let me know. Until then, here's the syllogism:
1. Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity 2. The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3. Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe and life.
In order to "refute" this, as you claim, one or the other premises must be shown to be false, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. A "pond" does not exhibit information rich specified complexity. Do you not see the difference between an effect caused by a non-intelligent cause (nature) and one that is the exclusive effect of an intelligent cause? The pond can be caused by mindless, undirected natural processes or by an intelligent cause, but a cave wall drawing can never be the effect of a mindless, undirected natural process, but only by an intelligence.
Hide or report this
•

(striking out any logical fallacies- my doing)which leaves the following for information:
1. a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life can be challenged if there could be found a non- intelligent source that can be demonstrated to cause effects of that kind/class (information rich with specified complexity).
2. Since there are no known non-intelligent sources that can demonstrate causing effects of that kind/class (even a simple cave wall drawing)
3. intelligence stands alone as the highest probable cause for the origin of the universe and life.
4. The specific nature and identity of the source is irrelevant given what we know of the effect itself
5. the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes.
6. a cave wall drawing can never be the effect of a mindless, undirected natural process, but only by an intelligence.

His kind/class argument is intentionally broad (as it is the universe).
He also plays with definitions. A drawing can't be mindless because of it's definition (see greek- techne). A berry splatting against a cave wall isn't a drawing but is mindless...  so he's not really doing justice to the definition. mindless is even a strech as a definition. Can a robot create a painting? A money a book, etc.
That coupled with the obvious fallacies and the blatant contradiction he states in 4 I hope are clearer now that the dross is burned off.

Basically he's saying that the effect is the universe, and it's so broad, that the cause is moot while at the same time calling a cave painting and radio signals in the same kind/class of the specificity and complexity of the universe. It's probably be more easily seen by him if you just restated like:
1. Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity within the universe
2. The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3. Therefore, a sufficiently advanced and human, Thor, idea, alien, axiomatic cause or robot is a possible cause for the universe and life.

[Jrouche]

Tack, here is what he wrote last in its entirety. Please forgive its length. I argued for the cave painting was done by humans and gave all the evidence that this was the best plausible answer given--arceological evidence, humans paint/draw, tools etc. He wrote----

Even in the absence of other examples from that time period, the surrounding area, or on the entire continent for that matter, who would be so obtuse as to suggest that a cave wall drawing, regardless of how remotely isolated it may be, had a non-intelligent cause? But that appears to be what you are saying: Because you have no apparent evidence for an intelligent cause, other than the existence of the universe and life itself, a non-intelligent cause must be assumed. How utterly irrational is that? The only way a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life can be challenged at all is if there could be found a non- intelligent source that can be demonstrated to cause effects of that kind/class (information rich with specified complexity). Since there are no known non-intelligent sources that can demonstrate causing effects of that kind/class (even a simple cave wall drawing), intelligence stands alone as the highest probable cause for the origin of the universe and life.
It is patently false to insist that a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life has been refuted or proved incorrect Cite the refutation or proof.
Perhaps another example would be helpful. Suppose one day earth detects a repeating signal every ten minutes from deep space, from a source pinpointed to a distant galaxy, and the repeating signal is composed of nothing more than the first 50 prime numbers. Having absolutely zero information regarding the source, other than the signal itself, would you infer a non-intelligent cause for the signal or a possible, if not likely, intelligent cause? What information would you need to know about the source of the signal in order to logically and rationally infer a possible, if not probable, intelligent cause? Answer: Nothing! The specific nature and identity of the source is irrelevant given what we know of the effect itself: the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes. Period.
The only thing that would challenge an inferred intelligent cause (but couldn't eliminate it) would be to identify a non-intelligent source that can demonstrate the ability to cause effects of that kind/class. When you can identify one, let me know. Until then, here's the syllogism:
1. Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity 2. The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3. Therefore, intelligence is a possible cause for the universe and life.
In order to "refute" this, as you claim, one or the other premises must be shown to be false, or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. A "pond" does not exhibit information rich specified complexity. Do you not see the difference between an effect caused by a non-intelligent cause (nature) and one that is the exclusive effect of an intelligent cause? The pond can be caused by mindless, undirected natural processes or by an intelligent cause, but a cave wall drawing can never be the effect of a mindless, undirected natural process, but only by an intelligence.
Hide or report this
•

(striking out any logical fallacies- my doing)which leaves the following for information:
1. a possible intelligent cause for the universe and life can be challenged if there could be found a non- intelligent source that can be demonstrated to cause effects of that kind/class (information rich with specified complexity).
2. Since there are no known non-intelligent sources that can demonstrate causing effects of that kind/class (even a simple cave wall drawing)
3. intelligence stands alone as the highest probable cause for the origin of the universe and life.
4. The specific nature and identity of the source is irrelevant given what we know of the effect itself
5. the only known cause for effects of that kind/class are intelligent causes.
6. a cave wall drawing can never be the effect of a mindless, undirected natural process, but only by an intelligence.

His kind/class argument is intentionally broad (as it is the universe).
He also plays with definitions. A drawing can't be mindless because of it's definition (see greek- techne). A berry splatting against a cave wall isn't a drawing but is mindless...  so he's not really doing justice to the definition. mindless is even a strech as a definition. Can a robot create a painting? A money a book, etc.
That coupled with the obvious fallacies and the blatant contradiction he states in 4 I hope are clearer now that the dross is burned off.

Basically he's saying that the effect is the universe, and it's so broad, that the cause is moot while at the same time calling a cave painting and radio signals in the same kind/class of the specificity and complexity of the universe. It's probably be more easily seen by him if you just restated like:
1. Intelligence is known to cause effects exhibiting information rich and specified complexity within the universe
2. The universe and life are effects that exhibit information rich and specified complexity.
3. Therefore, a sufficiently advanced and human, Thor, idea, alien, axiomatic cause or robot is a possible cause for the universe and life.

Thanks for taking the time Tak, I know this is time consuming...much appreciated and have a great day. John