Worst atheistic argument?

[Tiberius]

Just wondering what you think the worst atheistic argument is? This could be an argument you've used before, or one that someone told you (and you then poked holes in).

The whole "Can God create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?" is one that I've used in the past, before I realised why it is an appalling use of logic (see Arcanus' first post in the debate thread for the reasons why). I've seen it used by clever people (I believe Dawkins used it in "The God Delusion") which is a shame.

So, what is your "worst" atheist argument?

[Edwardo Piet]

Well, it's not very interesting but, in all honesty I think the worst is when an atheist just takes the piss and says that the God concept is so ridiculous and childish that it is definitely the case that God absolutely doesn't exist. Which is a logical fallacy, you can't prove a negative.

The fallacy of The Argument From Personal Incredulity in other words, it's not an entertaining answer, no - but it's honestly the technically worst argument I've heard I think. Because I think any arguments considered worse than this are probably just sub-categories of it.

EvF

[Eilonnwy]

That religion does nothing good in the world. It's a gross over generalization and the evils of religion are not so cut and dry as that. Religion has a great monopoly on charity

[Rhizomorph13]

I think the worst would be:

1. God is a prick
2. Therefore he doesn't exist

No really, I've heard that one.

Rhizo

[Edwardo Piet]

Rhizo:
Actually, from one perspective - that argument works. Because if by "prick" you just mean "prick" in the sense of the verb meaning 'to pierce or puncture', then if God is really just a prick in that sense - then he's merely a verb. And a verb that does exist. Now all that is being done then, is "God" is being used as a synonym for a mere verb. And a verb - isn't actually capable of creating a universe now is it? So if we accept that's all God is, is just a word - if we accept that as an axiom a tautology, true by definition - then he's not actually "God" as in the supernatural creator of the universe. So in the sense of a supernatural creator: God doesn't exist.

Of course in the above case though, in the sense of God simply being defined as the verb "prick", he would still exist; but I personally would see that as an unworthy definition and be strongly opposed to it, even if it was in the dictionary.

EvF

[Violet]

If you can't prove a negative... then what are all of these negative numbers?

I wouldn't now of any one argument to call "the worst"... I now of a set of bad ones, and a couple good ones, and a few that are alright... but I've yet to declare one the best, or the worst.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

you can't prove a negative.

I keep running across that cliche . I think it's wrong.


Falsifiability is used constantly in science. IE proving X is not the case.

The logician does the same think when he uses a rule of inference to infer X is NOT the case[/quote].

A weakness of ALL arguments not supported by evidence is that few people seem aware of a basic principle of logical inference.: A logically valid argument MAY be true, but truth is not a condition.

[/quote]A rule of inference needn't preserve any semantic property such as truth or validity.[quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_inference

[fr0d0]

@ Eviie: I don't know if I should shoot you or myself!

@ Saerules: LOL - I'll have to remember that one LOL

@ Padraic: WHAT??

[Meatball]

Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot, that even he cannot eat it?

[Eilonnwy]

Can Jesus microwave a burrito so hot, that even he cannot eat it?

Yes. I believe that is the defining characteristic of Jesus.