Annoying Atheist Arguments

[Minimalist]

Because I know they are not real!

Exactly how I feel about fucking jesus.

[Zone]

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.

[Question Mark]

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

[Zone]

I don't think you can really compare a monotheistic God to polytheistic gods. You could compare the Devil to a polytheistic god like Loki or someone that works out just fine. If you knock out the supporting cast the rest of the theology falls into some kind of deism.

[Brian37]

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?

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!

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Do you think the meaning of "I don't believe your mother is alive' is the same as 'I believe your mother is dead'? Because I don't believe your mother is alive AND I don't believe she is dead. I don't know anything about your mother, so why would I believe she's alive or dead? But I can't honestly say I believe your mother is dead AND I believe your mother is alive, because the two are mutually exclusive. If I believe your mother is dead, I can't believe she's alive.

[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.

[Zone]

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.

If everyone else in the world but me professed a belief that the Lochness Monster which forms part of a Trinty in union with God the Father and the spirit of Hamish McDuff and by consuming the sacrament the Lochness Monsters body in the form of haggis and drinking of it's blood in the form of malt whisky eternal life will be granted, because I'm taking on the essence of the Lochness Monster. I wouldn't have a belief if I didn't join in, or if I said I think there's something a bit silly about it all. That opinion is just the default setting everyone would normally have.

[genkaus]

If everyone else in the world but me professed a belief that the Lochness Monster which forms part of a Trinty in union with God the Father and the spirit of Hamish McDuff and by consuming the sacrament the Lochness Monsters body in the form of haggis and drinking of it's blood in the form of malt whisky eternal life will be granted, because I'm taking on the essence of the Lochness Monster. I wouldn't have a belief if I didn't join in, or if I said I think there's something a bit silly about it all. That opinion is just the default setting everyone would normally have.

Yes, you would. If you think that this outlandish claim is not true then you do have a belief regarding it. That being the default position does not exempt it from being a belief.

---

Do you think the meaning of "I don't believe your mother is alive' is the same as 'I believe your mother is dead'?

That's correct.

Because I don't believe your mother is alive AND I don't believe she is dead. I don't know anything about your mother, so why would I believe she's alive or dead? But I can't honestly say I believe your mother is dead AND I believe your mother is alive, because the two are mutually exclusive. If I believe your mother is dead, I can't believe she's alive.

Barring some staggering form of cognitive dissonance, I don't see how. But is that the point you are trying to make? That simultaneously rejecting a proposition and its negation is acceptable because of the possibility of cognitive dissonance?

[Question Mark]

If everyone else in the world but me professed a belief that the Lochness Monster which forms part of a Trinty in union with God the Father and the spirit of Hamish McDuff and by consuming the sacrament the Lochness Monsters body in the form of haggis and drinking of it's blood in the form of malt whisky eternal life will be granted, because I'm taking on the essence of the Lochness Monster. I wouldn't have a belief if I didn't join in, or if I said I think there's something a bit silly about it all. That opinion is just the default setting everyone would normally have.

Yes, you would. If you think that this outlandish claim is not true then you do have a belief regarding it. That being the default position does not exempt it from being a belief.

Hang on, wait a second, not believing in the Loch Ness Monster is a belief?