[quote='genkaus' pid='391141' dateline='1358986858']
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.
------------------------
Sorry - but YOU are wrong there
For the most part - religions DO INDEED say the same thing - that a god created us and everything else. There may be details that are different - but this is the major claim of all religions
AND THERE IS no evidence that is true - and lots to say it is NOT
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.
THEN - why do you not consider it to be a pretty good argument from an ATHEIST?
With all of the things in the bible that have already been established NOT TO BE REAL - plus lots of others that have no support in the historic record of their supposed time - it is easy to see that the claims of YOUR religion are nonsense -
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.
_____________________
Actually - you are the one just moving the goal post
IF YOU have real testable and verifiable proof of the existence of YOUR GOD _ you would have posted it FIRST - and not need the rest of your post.
BUT as we know you have NONE -and none exists - your statement against the question is ingenuine
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.
NOPE - sorry - but YOU are again wrong
YOU are using the old theist definition of what an atheist is - and then trying to use YOUR statement against what atheists really are
Atheism - is BY DEFINITION - lack of belief in gods -
It is NOT a belief that gods do not exist - as YOU like to claim
IT is not a belief system in any way.
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.
----------------------------
Sorry - but those of us trained in Science - we do not belive in the scientific methiod - we ACCEPT THE SCIENTIFIC method as being real.
Again - you are attempting to define science as a belief system - when in fact it deals with reality. AND - we it is NOT dealing with what is proven to be true - we call than THEORY - and admit it not to be proven true.
However - religion deals with things NONE OF WHICH are proven true - and calls those things "TRUTHS" - which is itself a falsehood
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.
------------------------
Sorry - but YOU are wrong there
For the most part - religions DO INDEED say the same thing - that a god created us and everything else. There may be details that are different - but this is the major claim of all religions
AND THERE IS no evidence that is true - and lots to say it is NOT
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.
THEN - why do you not consider it to be a pretty good argument from an ATHEIST?
With all of the things in the bible that have already been established NOT TO BE REAL - plus lots of others that have no support in the historic record of their supposed time - it is easy to see that the claims of YOUR religion are nonsense -
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.
_____________________
Actually - you are the one just moving the goal post
IF YOU have real testable and verifiable proof of the existence of YOUR GOD _ you would have posted it FIRST - and not need the rest of your post.
BUT as we know you have NONE -and none exists - your statement against the question is ingenuine
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.
NOPE - sorry - but YOU are again wrong
YOU are using the old theist definition of what an atheist is - and then trying to use YOUR statement against what atheists really are
Atheism - is BY DEFINITION - lack of belief in gods -
It is NOT a belief that gods do not exist - as YOU like to claim
IT is not a belief system in any way.
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.
----------------------------
Sorry - but those of us trained in Science - we do not belive in the scientific methiod - we ACCEPT THE SCIENTIFIC method as being real.
Again - you are attempting to define science as a belief system - when in fact it deals with reality. AND - we it is NOT dealing with what is proven to be true - we call than THEORY - and admit it not to be proven true.
However - religion deals with things NONE OF WHICH are proven true - and calls those things "TRUTHS" - which is itself a falsehood
