RE: Annoying Atheist Arguments
January 24, 2013 at 5:09 am
(This post was last modified: January 24, 2013 at 5:41 am by genkaus.)
(January 23, 2013 at 9:31 pm)Ryantology Wrote: The phraseology is the same. The likelihood of either statement being true is certainly not the same.
Like I said in some other thread, certain belief and certain unbelief are both leaps of faith, but one of those leaps is light-years longer than the other.
I didn't know atheism was measured by the probability you assigned to god's existence?
Anyway, it is not just the phraseology that is same, it is the meaning as well. We are not measuring the probability of god's existence but the belief state of the person making the statement. I'd say that if the person does not believe that a god exists, then the probability of both statements being true is exactly the same - 1.
(January 23, 2013 at 9:37 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: 1. 1 is usually given in return to an argument that does not call for a specific religion's god. You've never seen a theist use an argument for god - and not their god? It happens a lot and so 1 is a good counter.
"Usually" being the key here. It is a good counter within that context. A lot of times it is used while referring to the specific characteristic of god(s) of one religion. For example, things like giving forgiveness, granting revelations etc are usually the characteristic of Christian god but lacking in many others.
(January 23, 2013 at 9:37 pm)Gilgamesh Wrote: 2. There are unknown unknowns. Those things could all possibly exist, given knowledge we don't know yet - much like a god could possibly exist.
But that god would not be equivalent to FSM, unicorns or the Biblical god because they come under the knowns.
(January 23, 2013 at 10:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:This post is not about changing counter-arguments or finding new ones. Rather its about the correct application of existing ones.
They don't listen anyway.
Doesn't matter. Its not about improving their minds. Its about improving ours.
(January 23, 2013 at 10:44 pm)jonb Wrote: If there is nothing new on the table, the response to it is also not going to be anything new. This is the only atheist forum I have been on and then only for some months, but after the first few weeks I have not seen a new theist argument which would require much more than a standard response to explain the atheist position. There are many atheists here who are itching for a good 'barny', but we lack new fodder. At times things are so bad, the atheists here are forced to invent arguments among themselves while we wait for something new to come along.
If you could find a few tender young theists with a new approach that could turn up here for our entertainment, dear OP you would be the toast of the forum.
I agree. The standard arguments do cover all of the theist arguments. This post is not about finding any new arguments but correctly applying the existing ones. My peeve here is not that I haven't seen any new arguments but that some atheists seem to use those standard arguments without regard for whether they are actually applicable or not.
(January 23, 2013 at 11:00 pm)cato123 Wrote: You could have saved digital space by proclaiming that you don't understand the concept of 'burden of proof'. You claim to be seeking 'novel' arguments. What bullshit. How many different ways do atheists have to contrive to ask the same thing; namely, where is the fucking evidence for a god?
The dearth of reasonable responses to your questions should bother you more than the fact that the retorts become boring.
Or perhaps it has something to do with the failure of so many people to understand what I'm actually saying. Did I not make myself clear or are you simply not interested in reading a post before replying to it? I mentioned my lookout for novel arguments once - in the introductory line. My main point - for the rest of the post - has consistently been to point out the misuse and misapplication of the standard arguments. I don't know how much more simply I can put it.
