Popular arguments you think Atheists shouldn't use

[CapnAwesome]

Good topic, a lot of people on here could use much sharper arguments in my opinion.

By far the number one for me is the argument from evil, the claim that God can't exist because there is so much evil in the world. It is a very very overused and mostly poorly used argument. I see probably a new thread every other day repeating this argument. I've known a few Atheists that even claim it's their reason for not believing in God.

What's the problem with it? Well it basically only covers a very very specific characteristic (omnibenevolence, or all goodness) of a single God that's only believed in by a tiny minority of people who only have believed in for at most a few centuries. It isn't a reason at all to disbelieve in Allah (or Zeus), for example, who isn't supposed to be all good at all, but rather all just. Even many modern day Christians believe that he punishes sinners and that he was a lot of wrath and is to be feared and that very characteristic is part of what is good about him. It also is a particularly poor reason to be an Atheist specifically. If the problem of evil were philosophically sound (and I think there are some problems with it there as well) then it could have any number of implications. There could be a creative force that isn't omnipresent but created life. God could be immoral or simply not care. Any of those make just as much sense as Atheism if the problem of evil is your primary reason for not believing in God. Even through most of the history of Christianity God wasn't thought to be all-good. That's where the whole concept of God fearing came from. All together a poor argument that I think should be reserved for arguing with Christians who have asserted already that God is all good.

I think the best arguments are that we have scientific explanations for most of the phenomenon that are associated with God in the past and present that a God of the gaps makes no sense when the gaps are rapidly filling in. Also I think that the fact that God has no particular reason to remain hidden and yet mysteriously does is a particularly sound argument.

---

Though you wouldn't dispute that within Christian Europe, to openly think critically about the faith meant certain ruin and sometimes death, right?

It was really Christian Europe until they united after the Moorish Invasion of France during the 8th century CE. When the European rulers united under the banner of Christianity, the Dark Ages were pretty much ended.

Christianity actually has a lot to thank for the Moslems invading Europe...it did wonders to foment the power of the Catholic Church.

I don't know why Polaris got banned but I really wanted to hear his explanation for calling people historically ignorant in one post and then in the next claiming that the dark ages ended in the 8th century? Maybe he's making the claim that it wasn't Christian Europe because Muslims held half of Spain and thus the Church wasn't powerful until after that. Regardless that doesn't work because Islam was in the Balkans so in that case there was never a Christian Europe. It would be nice if you are claiming historical and intellectual superiority to actually know what you are talking about. Doesn't really matter. He always runs away from me once the arguments have to be backed up by substance. Like when he claimed Atheist arguments weren't responsible for the drop in Christianity in the U.S. and the rise in people associating with non-religion, but rather responsible for the rise of new Age Christianity. When I asked for even a shred of proof (after I had provided the statistics that were available and he had just talked out his ass with nothing to back it up.) Poof, vanished in a puff of smoke. I don't think using shitty logic should be grounds of banning though. We'd hardly have a forum left.

[Clueless Morgan]

I get irritated when atheists trot out the "We're all atheists with respect to most gods, Atheists just go one god further" thing. I think it can be a fair statement, but it's just so over used that I've come to find it annoying.

---

With that said, though, most theists probably haven't heard it, so even if I find it annoying I wouldn't be opposed to whipping it out if a conversation with a theists calls for such a thing to be pointed out to them.

---

What is wrong with that one? It is true. We do simply have one less god claim we hold than they do. They are merely unaware of the logic they use to reject all the other claims they do not buy.

If you do not believe in Thor, you are an atheist on that claim. If you do not believe in Vishnu, you are an atheist on that claim. You do not hold the position that that god exists.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, I said it irritates me.

I even conceded that it can be a good thing to bring up in a conversation with a theist, especially one who hasn't heard it before, and that I would even do so if I felt like a situation called for it, but that doesn't stop it from irritating me.

Incidentally, the reason it irritates me is that I think that it is so often quoted, especially with regards to atheists speaking to atheists (c'mon, we've ALLLLL heard this quote a hundred times), and so often written into books (written for atheists, skeptics, or freethinkers) that it has become overused, hence the reason I posted it in this thread. I wish people would let this particular quote alone for a while so that it can regain some of its punch.

Others feel this way about Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot the way I feel about the "everyone is an atheist" quote. Their feelings don't reflect on the merits of the teapot argument, they just feel that it is overused, just like my irritation isn't a reflection of the merits of that quote, I just feel it's being overuse.

[CapnAwesome]

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, I said it irritates me.

I even conceded that it can be a good thing to bring up in a conversation with a theist, especially one who hasn't heard it before, and that I would even do so if I felt like a situation called for it, but that doesn't stop it from irritating me.

Incidentally, the reason it irritates me is that I think that it is so often quoted, especially with regards to atheists speaking to atheists (c'mon, we've ALLLLL heard this quote a hundred times), and so often written into books (written for atheists, skeptics, or freethinkers) that it has become overused, hence the reason I posted it in this thread. I wish people would let this particular quote alone for a while so that it can regain some of its punch.

Others feel this way about Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot the way I feel about the "everyone is an atheist" quote. Their feelings don't reflect on the merits of the teapot argument, they just feel that it is overused, just like my irritation isn't a reflection of the merits of that quote, I just feel it's being overuse.

I agree. You aren't really using an argument when you say that, you are just ripping off someone else's clever quote.

[RobbyPants]

I don't know why Polaris got banned but I really wanted to hear his explanation for calling people historically ignorant in one post and then in the next claiming that the dark ages ended in the 8th century?
...
I don't think using shitty logic should be grounds of banning though. We'd hardly have a forum left.

It's a two-week temp ban. That being said, I want to know what he meant about the bronze age argument. The only bronze age reference I can remember seeing and making is referring to Judaism as either bronze-age mythology or a bronze-age morality system.