Popular arguments you think Atheists shouldn't use

[Dolorian]

What popular arguments for Atheism do you think shouldn't be used because they are either downright bad or ineffective?

I think most of the time using scripture verses to try and argue with Christians is not too effective and some times Atheists just make bad arguments on these grounds.

One particular example that comes to mind is AronRa trying to set a contradiction between Exodus 20:3 and John 14:6 and also between Exodus 20:12 and Luke 14:26. For the first, Christians believe Jesus IS God, so there is no distinction. For the second, Jesus is talking about putting God first and above all things (as per the first commandment), so if your family is an obstacle to that, then you should do what Jesus is saying. Not a real issue.

[naimless]

Generally any argument at all is stupid.

People don't respond to arguments well. Too much ego involved.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I don't think there are any arguments 'for' atheism, rather arguments 'against' theism however defined.

Re: contradictions in the bible. There are so many in there you could pick them out all day long, but ultimately it won't matter if you're discussing them with someone who has the usual bible blinkers on. But then again, debates are often about convincing an audience and not your opponent.

[Simon Moon]

Are you talking about arguing about the existence of a god in general? Or specifically arguing with Christians?

I agree that arguing Biblical contradictions is not the best tactic, since Christians have ways to rationalize them away. The contradictions are there, but Christians are well trained to make them (in their own minds) go away.

The argument from evil is pretty bad.

But neither of these, and the examples you bring up) are arguing for atheism. They are arguing against theism.

They have the burden of proof.

[vorlon13]

Does the Atheist 'cause' need consistency in it's message ??

For instance, pointing out Jesus was wrong about something, or inconsistent, or contradicting himself (or dad) but realizing we have other atheists claiming Jesus didn't exist at all, so he can't be wrong, inconsistent or contradictory about anything if he didn't exist.

I'm not saying we need a 'lesser' standard than the religiousites, but it seems the 'rules' might of necessity, be different.

Too bad we don't have some stone tablets with . . . LOL, nevermind !!!

[Brian37]

I think all tactics are good, as long as you are factual. Both blunt and polite work, not so much for the individual in the moment, but more for the audience watching it. You are most likely never going to de convert someone on the spot. But long term that person will be thinking about that conversation for a long time. Most of the time you will never know that what you said did change their position. There are many here who used to be theists and because of either the arguments of others or because they wanted to doubt but feared being open, we got to where we are at. The guy that got me to start questioning I will never see again and he will never know that I changed my position.

Having the audience to me is more important than tactic and even our infighting being public is good. It shows the theist that we do not all agree and are not a bunch of sheep.

Having that audience also acts as an immunity to those just beginning to think about the issue. It can act as immunity to slick snake oil arguments.

[tjakey]

I completely agree with Brian. Religion is a society wide phenomena that will not go away in a day, year, or century. It has to be challenged at every moment and at every place where it can be demonstrated that the claims of the religious are wrong, that their actions are oppressive and abusive, and that the cosmos is simply not a place created by or containing a deity. Individual believers should be hard pressed to defend their claims anytime they bring them up. The institutions of religion should be consistently forced to explain why they should be allowed to break the laws every other institution in the society must obey. (If the Catholic church was a secular business, it would have long ago been sued into bankruptcy for its discriminatory stance on women.)

We should take every opportunity to set the various religions against each other. Ask the Protestants why they want to live under laws forced on them by a Catholic Supreme Court. Why should the Baptists be forced to subsidize Methodist churches that are near empty every Sunday? Force them to defend the religious claims of Pat Robertson and Bill O'Riley. Insist that the Muslim explain ISIS and women not being allowed to drive. Ask the Catholic why they should live with the Protestant view of birth control. Religion is as intolerant of other religion as it is of non-religion, something many of them usually try to hide. Expose it for the weakness it is.

No chance should be passed to challenge the tax exempt status of churches. Any politician who supports "faith based" social programs funded by taxpayers should have to explain him or herself over and over again. Judges should be constantly derided for using the powers of the court to force their religious prejudices on a free people. Every time some religious spokesperson makes an insane statement on the basis of a god, every religious person on the planet should be forced to agree or dismiss it as false. All religion should be challenged at every turn and in every way, with whatever argument, debate tactic, or legal challenge is available at the moment. Every chip out of the foundation, every crack in the walls, any breech that forces it back the smallest of steps, is a small victory and adds just a little hope for the future.

Be polite. Be aggressive. Be argumentative, intransigent, insistent. Marshal your arguments carefully or just blast away at religious prejudice, abuse, and ignorance. Whatever suits your personality and the circumstances of the moment. Or just walk away in disgust, that can work too. But never let them walk away without realizing that there is at least one person in the world who thinks they are full of shit.

Every bit of religious mayhem currently assaulting human kind is based on a lie, a myth, a fairy tale. People every day are abused, murdered, and oppressed in the name of something no more real than Santa Clause or the Tooth fairy. There is no argument out of bounds when it comes to challenging that horrible fact.

[Brian37]

Well I also warn atheists not to think a utopia of no religion will exist either. I think the best you can do is keep it on a leash with secular pluralism. Given time though, you can work for a less religious society that understands how important it is to not mix religion and politics.

Our voice, not force, is our best weapon.

[tjakey]

I don't expect a non-religious society will be a utopia. But the failures of a non-religious society will be easier to deal with when no one can puff themselves up and say "God told me thus ..." Or, if some fool did make such a claim, the rest of society would guffaw, snicker, shake their heads, make sure the fool got the mental health help needed so that no one is hurt, and then goes about their business.

The post was talking about arguments, not force. I am not an advocate of violence; at the moment that is a religious issue. Violence would be one of the issues faced by a non-religious society. After all, we are a species of tribal apes and violence is written into our DNA. Overcoming that will take an enormous effort, and may not be possible. But it would be a sight easier if we couldn't claim that the god of OUR tribe is the REAL god.

[Whateverist]

Does the Atheist 'cause' need consistency in it's message ??

For instance, pointing out Jesus was wrong about something, or inconsistent, or contradicting himself (or dad) but realizing we have other atheists claiming Jesus didn't exist at all, so he can't be wrong, inconsistent or contradictory about anything if he didn't exist.

I like Emerson's answer:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

That is the path followed by know-nothings convinced they know it all. It leads to fundamentalism. Avert!