Annoying Atheist Arguments

[genkaus]

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

A good example of what I meant by limited knowledge of other religions.

Not all religions believe in god - in fact, different factions of the same religion may disagree upon it as well. That is not the major claim of all religions and that does not summarily cover the entirety of religious arguments.

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 -

Take a good look once again at the argument I made - the part that you even quoted. I do consider it to be a good argument from an atheist - IN A SPECIFIC CONTEXT. Now compare the context you gave here with the one I presented in my example.

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

Except, when a discussion starts like the one given in the example, existence of god becomes a moot point. Like I said, I can discuss various aspects of Gandalf without bringing up his actual existence.

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.

No, it is not a belief system - but then, I never said it was.

So, according to you, you lack belief in god/s but you DON'T believe that god/s do not exist. That's a level of doublethink worthy of Orwell.

Sorry - but those of us trained in Science - we do not believe 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

Again with the doublethink. Why must you skitter around making self-contradictory statements when your core position is defensible?

If you accept the scientific method - you believe in it. Science is not a belief system - it is a subset of one. The things you believe and have come to accept regarding reality form your belief system and clearly, science and scientific method are a part of it. Why are you so ashamed of admitting that?

---

I have to disagree with number 4. Just because you don't accept the religious and supernatural claims of others it doesn't automatically mean that you are making one of your own to counter them. If everyone in the world except me believed in the Lochness Monster I wouldn't have a belief about the Lochness Monster it would just be everyone else in the world making a claim about something they believe in.

That's the distinction between a claim and a belief. You don't have to make a claim while professing a belief. If everyone in the world believed in the Lochness monster but you, then you are professing a belief - even if you are not making a claim.

---

The thing to remember here, I think, is that most of the responses atheists give to accusations from theists, which is what most of these replies are, is that they're trying to insert a note of self-questioning into the theist asking the question. For instance "You can say the same thing about Vishnu/Zeus/&c." is an attempt by the moderate atheist to get the theist to try to see how their god is no different from the gods that they themselves view as fictional. Or at the least, to get them to come up with something that sets their god aside.
Really, it's like going into a maze and complaining that the routes to the end haven't changed. Maybe you've found your way through, and now find it lacking, but theists who cling to the heavy baggage of their god still can't manage to squeeze passed

The problem I have is giving those responses in a formulaic manner. Its like, going into a maze, complaining the routes haven't changed, telling the theists how to get through it - all the while, talking about a completely different maze.

---

Please tell me what is annoying about saying superstition is superstition Please tell me what is annoying about saying the earth is not flat. What is annoying about saying the moon is not made of cheese?

I do not see any point in saying "atheist arguments are annoying, or can be as annoying"

Of course atheist arguments are annoying, I remember as the school mascot being rejected by a cheerleader. It is called REALITY. I had an unrealistic view of an individual girl ever liking me. If I had pressed on or gotten more aggressive because of my own delusion, I would have hurt myself, gotten hurt, or hurt her.

The cheerleader annoyed me with rejection, BECAUSE SHE WASN'T INTERESTED!

What's annoying is going around talking about how earth is not flat and how moon is not made of cheese when no one in talking about that in the first place.

What's annoying is responding without even bothering to read what you are replying to.

What's annoying, is assuming that I'm generally calling any atheist arguments annoying, whereas my annoyance is directed towards specific arguments in specific contexts where they don't belong.

What's annoying is giving arguments and metaphors that simply aren't relevant to the the argument being made.