Annoying Atheist Arguments

[Shell B]

Point to where an atheist said that they have no position on god existing or not existing. Sorry, but you're being disingenuous.

Can't really say. I don't remember each and every post I read on this and other forums. Suffice to say that I've seen it enough times to have made an impression.

However, since I can't provide any concrete examples, I'll retract the bit about "Atheism is not a position, but an absence of one" as one of the annoying arguments.

Appreciate it. Interestingly, I have been on this forum for several years and am one of the most active members and I have never seen that argument even once. Of course, that is just my experience.

[Minimalist]

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.

[jonb]

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.

[Cato]

1. "Well, you could say the same thing about Allah/Vishnu/Odin/Zeus etc."

2. "So why don't you believe in FSM, Unicorns, Bigfoot, the Force, Orcs etc."
3. "Yeah, well, you can't prove any of it is real in the first place"
4. "Atheism is not a belief/position, it is the absence of one."
5. "My belief in science/logic/reason is not based on faith but on evidence"

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.

[genkaus]

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

[pocaracas]

I see your point... some atheists aren't very good juggling the written word.... and end up messing things up.
As I was reading the OP, I was agreeing to everything, while keeping my smugness meter on for not being one of those mentioned!
But then came point 4.... and I thought "you're gonna get a beating!!".... then I read the responses and you got that beating... So I'm not going to beat you anymore.
If you want more arguments, see this wiki:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/

[Confused Ape]

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.

I think this could relate to the spectrum of theistic probability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of...robability

6: De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7: Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

Atheists who place themselves somewhere in the 6 category will say "I don't believe God exists" and mean that they don't believe because of lack of evidence. They aren't claiming that God doesn't exist as such just in case any evidence turns up in the future.

Atheists who place themselves as a 7 claim to know that God doesn't exist as a concrete scientific fact. When they say "I don't believe God exists" they mean "I don't believe God exists because God doesn't exist." People can find out what these 7's actually mean by what they say in their arguments against God's existence.

When it comes to not listening to what a theist is saying, I agree. If I'm going to discuss religion with a theist I find it helps to know what the theist actually believes in. After all, there's no point in asking a Jehovah's Witness why they think that the Pope is infallible. I also like to find out why a theist believes in God. If they say something like "I felt God's presence in church" I consider the possibility that their brain produced a subjective experience which they interpreted as God. (My own brain produces odd, subjective experiences which I interpret as something causing my brain to have a hiccup.)

[jonb]

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.

We are bound to get wrongly applied arguments, and lots of other natural errors. One of the uses I think atheist forums are being used for, is that atheists who are alone and embedded in theist communities can use the forums as testing grounds for their arguments in the real world. Thus as these forums are used partly as practice grounds, we have to expect errors. True some experienced atheists also do not listen, but when you hear the same old tired old thing over and over again It is hard to keep alert. In other words it is in the nature of the beast. Just pick through the thing and find those bits which are good for you.

[Minimalist]

Doesn't matter. Its not about improving their minds. Its about improving ours.

Mine is as good as it going to get.... sadly, so are theirs. They'd have to want to trade their fantasies for reality. For some of them, it is simply asking too much.

However, that does not mean we can't have a little fun with them if they bother to come here. I suppose, were I to go trolling their jesus or allah boards I would feel obligated to put some effort into it.

But here, I desire to be nothing more than the guy who puts a bucket of ice water on top of a partly opened door and invites them to come in.

[ThomM]

[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