Bad Arguments for God

[Mister Agenda]

Here's one:

If God exists, he created the universe.
The universe exists.
Therefore, God.

It's only instructiveness lies in illustrating the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

[Justtristo]

Hiya I'm new to this forum and have only recently decided I am an atheist. I can't really talk to many people about it as they think I am catholic and not sure how to deal with people like my mum-she will go insane if I tell her!!!

What I find frustrating is my friends weak answer when I asked why he believed in god. He said it was because without god life would be meaningless!!! I find this quite insulting as I feel my life has plenty of meaning-in fact more so than when I was a catholic (due to upbringing). Why are so many arguments for the existence of god based on fear?

I can understand your friend when he said without "god" life would be meaningless. Because I have had thoughts of the bleakness of existence and the absurdity of the cosmos and to me they are quite terrifying. Not the mention the prospect of my own existence ending when I die.

[Jackalope]

I can understand your friend when he said without "god" life would be meaningless. Because I have had thoughts of the bleakness of existence and the absurdity of the cosmos and to me they are quite terrifying. Not the mention the prospect of my own existence ending when I die.

Create your own meaning. Find your passion, whatever it may be, and live it to the best of your ability.

[Doubting Thomas]

I think argument from design has to be a pretty weak argument for God, but when you think about it, it's the best one Christians have.

1. If God exists, he designed the universe and life on Earth.
2. The universe and life on Earth appears designed.
3. Therefore, God exists.

It's almost as bad as the argument from false evolutionary theory:

1. If evolution is false, then God exists.
2. Crockoduck.
3. Therefore, God exists.

[Doubting Thomas]

Perhaps a few more that I've actually seen:

1. The idea of there being no god scares me.
2. Therefore, God exists.

Similarly:

1. I'm uncomfortable with arguments against God's existence.
2. Therefore, any such arguments are totally false.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. My mother told me that God exists.
2. My mother wouldn't lie to me.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. People who don't believe in God go to hell.
2. I don't want to go to hell.
3. Therefore, God exists.

1. People who believe in God are morally superior to those who don't.
2. I want to be morally superior.
3. Therefore, God exists.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Not the mention the prospect of my own existence ending when I die.

The worst part of atheism - the whole you die and it lasts for all time type thing. The never knowing you ever even lived bit. That's quite hard to come to terms with.

Over time it becomes easier to accept (you've got no choice), and I find comfort in the fact that there are many others probably with the same fears who are learning to cope with it like me.

At least atheists won't have a moment of sheer panic and doubt on their deathbed (is heaven real! Am I really going to live on? Oh fuck I hope so! I wasted my life!) , that's reserved for some of our know it all theistic chums, and when they've breathed their last, after the last minute panic, it's lights out - same for them as anyone else.

[The Grand Nudger]

(Either the club or their general hotness is the "best" argument for god, or the worst, not sure)

[mayor of simpleton]

I think that one of the worst parts of being designated as an atheist by a theist (I'm only an atheist when placed into context with the perspectives of a theist... otherwise I'm just a human named Greg) is that they tend to expect us to offer up arguments as poorly constructed as their's to defeat the assumption of this anthropomorphic deity.

The problem real is when you cannot find the urg to stoop to the low level of non sequiturs and hasty generalizations, they simply brush you off and make the claim that your an ego manic. Funny thing is, this anthropomorphic deity is simply a proxy of ego to justify whatever you wish (the function of a trump card god) and to abandon this assumption is to place ego into healthy perspective with regard to the universe/cosmos... gee... who's on the ego trip here?

If they can only prove god via such trump cards, meaning that they start with a central answer then proceed to mold the questions to adapt to this trump card assumption (circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because ...), why is it expected that we do the same thing?

Why must we offer up a replacement for god?

Why must we make the same error?

Why do they seem to demand that we have a "theory for everything" and provide all the answers in a sound bite or simply bite sized pieces, when the only thing that they do is claim "god did it so", proving nothing except the will of the ego to place mankind in the center of the universe?

It just get's old after a while, the constant dealing with one-trick ponies...

Meow!

GREG

btw... sorry the rant here, but I tried to read some of the "ontological proofs for god(s)" in the Philosophy section here... it was beginning to make my brain bleed.

[Ace Otana]

Every argument for god is a bad argument.

Yes, but there are very common arguments such as Pascal's Wager, to which the more slippery theists will cling. I think atheists need to spend a lot more time on crap like that, because attacking the Bible and hypocrisy rarely works.

Pascal's wager doesn't really support theists. It can work against them.
For example, I haven't rejected any god because I don't know of any that exist. I've rejected the claim that theists have put forward. Whilst theists cling to one god or another. They chose one god over another. They preach, they threaten hell and many speak for their god which could be a risky thing to do. They could be offending god. Like if someone spoke for me and said I support Nazism.

Besides, by with holding judgement and refusing to accept that such a god like theirs could be so cruel, stupid and pathetic, I've probably given any real god out there far greater respect than any theist. Pascal's wager can easily be used against religion.

[Doubting Thomas]

The main reason Pascal's Wager doesn't work (as well as less vague threats of eternal torment) is that first you have to prove that such a place as hell actually exists. It's easy for Christians to scare each other into remaining faithful, because they actually believe in the threat of hell. But for us nonbelievers, you might as well try to convince us that it's far better to stay indoors at night rather than take a chance of walking on the street in the dark and having the boogeyman get us.

Of course, they really need to explain how & why this all-good, all-loving god created an eternal torture chamber to send people in the first place, and why I should want to worship such a being that sends other people there. It's like some kind of weird Stockholm syndrome or battered wife syndrome. It's not unusual for children of abusive parents to love their abusers.