One of the reasons I joined this forum was to see innovative and novel debates - whether they be theist vs atheist or atheist vs atheist. However, over the time, I've found that a lot of atheist arguments have become repetitive and formulaic. While the obvious explanation for this is that there are no new arguments for the existence of god and therefore no new responses, I find that a lot of these arguments are presented regardless of context and claims provided. Basically, it seems like most of these arguments are being simply parroted without any inclination as to what the other side is actually trying to say - and I find that, well, annoying. I'll just go through a few of them off the top of my head and add more when and if I think of them.
1. "Well, you could say the same thing about Allah/Vishnu/Odin/Zeus etc."
This one is usually given by someone who knows little about any religion other than the one he/she comes in regular contact with and thinks that they all must say the same things. They don't.
While almost all religions I know of are similar in the sense that they all require faith, their individual philosophies and tenets are radically different. So, for example, if someone says that believing in god is the only way you can get into heaven and you give this reply - you are making the wrong argument. Not all religions believe in heaven or hell and not all believe that beliefs are important. Before using this argument you should consider whether other religions do make the same claims as the person before you before you seek to replace his conception of god with any of the others.
2. "So why don't you believe in FSM, Unicorns, Bigfoot, the Force, Orcs etc."
Because I know they are not real!
Normally, I think this is a pretty good argument - in a specific context. The context being where someone is making an unrealistic claim. The common characteristic of these things is that they go against the knowledge we already have. The stories surrounding the FSM or Unicorns or Orcs are such that they don't fit into the the scientific model of reality we have built. So, if a person is making claims about gods or supernatural that similarly go against known facts - as done by fundamentalists or creationists - then this argument makes sense. But giving this argument to someone who has carefully crafted his position so as not to contradict any available knowledge does not work.
3. "Yeah, well, you can't prove any of it is real in the first place"
Ideally, this should be the first response to be given when someone comes along talking about god. But that's not the usage I find annoying.
Consider this scenario. A theist starts a thread regarding how the god of their holy book is good or powerful and atheists jump in pointing out all the shortcomings from the same holy book. Or worse, an atheist starts a discussion about the failings of a particular deity and theists jump in to justify their actions and morals. The discussion goes back and forth for a few pages and some atheist says "well, all that is just fiction, so it doesn't matter".
That's just moving the goalposts. The time to make this argument is at the beginning of the discussion. Once you have engaged fully, there are certain premises you have been presumed to have accepted. In this case, that would be "It is irrelevant whether the events under discussion are factual or not". I can discuss whether Gandalf's actions were moral or not without going into whether he existed.
4. "Atheism is not a belief/position, it is the absence of one."
Whether or not you accept or reject a claim, you have taken a position regarding it. Whether you believe it or not, both come under the category of beliefs. Saying "I don't believe god exists" is the same as saying "I believe god doesn't exist". Whether or not you are required to justify those beliefs or what justification would be acceptable is another question altogether.
5. "My belief in science/logic/reason is not based on faith but on evidence"
This is probably the best argument for atheism out there. Even the most hardcore theists would find it difficult to deny the evidence provided by raw, perceptual data. And in most cases where the question of atheism being a faith-based position is raised, this argument clinches it.
Where it is not applicable, however, is when the validity of perception and reasoning themselves are being questioned. Your position regarding your belief in the scientific method or reason is not without its justification or philosophical underpinnings. This response, however, indicated that you don't know what they are and do not want to find out and thus your position is, in fact, faith-based.
That's all I have for now. Comments? Additions?
1. "Well, you could say the same thing about Allah/Vishnu/Odin/Zeus etc."
This one is usually given by someone who knows little about any religion other than the one he/she comes in regular contact with and thinks that they all must say the same things. They don't.
While almost all religions I know of are similar in the sense that they all require faith, their individual philosophies and tenets are radically different. So, for example, if someone says that believing in god is the only way you can get into heaven and you give this reply - you are making the wrong argument. Not all religions believe in heaven or hell and not all believe that beliefs are important. Before using this argument you should consider whether other religions do make the same claims as the person before you before you seek to replace his conception of god with any of the others.
2. "So why don't you believe in FSM, Unicorns, Bigfoot, the Force, Orcs etc."
Because I know they are not real!
Normally, I think this is a pretty good argument - in a specific context. The context being where someone is making an unrealistic claim. The common characteristic of these things is that they go against the knowledge we already have. The stories surrounding the FSM or Unicorns or Orcs are such that they don't fit into the the scientific model of reality we have built. So, if a person is making claims about gods or supernatural that similarly go against known facts - as done by fundamentalists or creationists - then this argument makes sense. But giving this argument to someone who has carefully crafted his position so as not to contradict any available knowledge does not work.
3. "Yeah, well, you can't prove any of it is real in the first place"
Ideally, this should be the first response to be given when someone comes along talking about god. But that's not the usage I find annoying.
Consider this scenario. A theist starts a thread regarding how the god of their holy book is good or powerful and atheists jump in pointing out all the shortcomings from the same holy book. Or worse, an atheist starts a discussion about the failings of a particular deity and theists jump in to justify their actions and morals. The discussion goes back and forth for a few pages and some atheist says "well, all that is just fiction, so it doesn't matter".
That's just moving the goalposts. The time to make this argument is at the beginning of the discussion. Once you have engaged fully, there are certain premises you have been presumed to have accepted. In this case, that would be "It is irrelevant whether the events under discussion are factual or not". I can discuss whether Gandalf's actions were moral or not without going into whether he existed.
4. "Atheism is not a belief/position, it is the absence of one."
Whether or not you accept or reject a claim, you have taken a position regarding it. Whether you believe it or not, both come under the category of beliefs. Saying "I don't believe god exists" is the same as saying "I believe god doesn't exist". Whether or not you are required to justify those beliefs or what justification would be acceptable is another question altogether.
5. "My belief in science/logic/reason is not based on faith but on evidence"
This is probably the best argument for atheism out there. Even the most hardcore theists would find it difficult to deny the evidence provided by raw, perceptual data. And in most cases where the question of atheism being a faith-based position is raised, this argument clinches it.
Where it is not applicable, however, is when the validity of perception and reasoning themselves are being questioned. Your position regarding your belief in the scientific method or reason is not without its justification or philosophical underpinnings. This response, however, indicated that you don't know what they are and do not want to find out and thus your position is, in fact, faith-based.
That's all I have for now. Comments? Additions?
