13 arguments atheists shouldn't use

[Mr.wizard]

I agree none of these should be used when arguing the existence of god because none of them address whether a god exists.

[Homeless Nutter]

There are no arguments that can prove, or disprove god - religions have been designed, as well as evolved, by "moving the goalposts" to make their core concepts unprovable/undisprovable. For those that want to believe there will always be possibilities for "god of the gaps", even if/when those gaps become microscopic.


All Hail the Flying Spagghetti Monster, who's Noodly Appendage interferes with carbon dating!

[Tonus]

6 - Your religion is immoral according to my subjective morality ---> Attacking the morality of a religion, no matter how much you disagree with it, is not proof that god doesn't exist and that religion is false.

Related to the above, but more accurately stated:

"Your religion is immoral according to -our shared- morality."

It seems to me that often, the argument is actually "your religion is immoral according to your own religion's moral code." It's not my fault if a theist interprets his holy book to determine that A is a sin, then has to contend with the number of times his deity did A.

[Mister Agenda]

We atheists think we're right about the god hypothesis, and in our defense I'd say it's embarrassing to be always right on the same subject. Regardless, not everything we say is necessarily right, accurate or valid; and because I want atheists to grow as a demographic, I've decided to make list of arguments or factual statements that atheists should stop using. For the record, some of them are actually true and can be said in some circumstances, but when it comes to the debate about god's hypothetical existence none of the following proves that god doesn't exist or that atheism is logically correct:

1 - A high percentage of scientists don't believe in god ---> This is an appeal to authority, and it's not any better than the theist argument of Most people in the world believe in god, therefore god exists. Independently of what scientists think, atheism is not composed solely by scientists and just because scientists say so it doesn't mean they are right or that atheism should have a gigantic boost in credibility, since the average atheist is not a copy of Dawkins. This applies to appeals made to any scientist, famous or not. [It's true that most scientists believe in god, it's a fact, it has been surveyed - But this doesn't prove atheism is right; just like if most scientists believed in god it wouldn't prove god exists]

I largely agree with your post, but my experience is that often these arguments are used in ways that make them appropriate in context, as I'm sure you would agree (you were very careful in how you formulated your points). For example 'most of the scientists in the Academy don't believe in a personal god' is a good point to make in response to 'half of American scientists believe in God', and so is pointing out that 50% isn't very impressive in a country where the rate of Christian belief is around 77%. It's often the other chap who brings up scientists, relative IQs, and the like. As an appeal to authority on God, scientists are unqualified, but as an appeal to authority on biology or physics...it really should be called 'appeal to inappropriate authority'. And God claims are often very tangled up in biology or physics.

[wiploc]

1 - A high percentage of scientists don't believe in god ---> This is an appeal to authority, and it's not any better than the theist argument of Most people in the world believe in god, therefore god exists.

It's an excellent rebuttal argument. When the theists claims that god must exist because most people believe in him, that's the perfect time to point out that smarter more educated tend not to believe in gods. And the more you study science, the less likely you are to believe.

2 - Atheists are more educated and intelligent

As explained above. It wouldn't occur to me to lead with this, but it can be an excellent riposte.


3 - God/religion is evil, immoral, harmful and bad because of (insert a verse from the holy book, a bad action practised by a religious person or institution like the inquisition, etc.) ---> The reasons we should dismiss and criticize religion are many, but religion or god are not wrong/false/don't exist just because they are evil and bad.

On the one hand, you're right that religion isn't wrong just because it's bad. But you're wrong about us needing to quit using this line of argument. We need to use it more.

Logical refutations of Christian arguments have little tendency to persuade. That's because Christians want Christianity to be true. I don't know how they can want people to burn in unending Hellfire, but they somehow think that would be good.

So long as they think that would be desirable, so long as they think the world would be better if Christianity were true, they will continue to assume that there must be logical arguments that support Christianity. They think their failure to articulate a successful defense of their religion is a personal failure, not a failure of their religion.

Until they realize that their religion is ugly, logic will not sway them.

They didn't get where they are by logic, so they cannot leave by logic alone. Only the emotional impact of realizing that their religion is undesirable will enable them to entertain the possibility that their religion is not logical.

Therefore we should, in calm, friendly, and respectful way, pair our logical appeals with emotional appeals that convey the ugliness of Religion.


[quote]
4 - Assuming reasons why theists believe beforehand (You were just indoctrinated by society/parents/family, you are afraid of death, you really want god to exist, you are a wishful thinker, etc.)

On the one hand, I want to agree. But on the other hand, this is still a good way to return a slap-in-the-face when they tell me that I'm only an atheist because I hate god and love sin.

Then I might turn to onlookers and explain, "He insulted me, so I insulted him. And my insult is better because it might even be possibly true."



5 - Babies are born atheists

It's a great line. When theists try to shift the BoP (burden of proof), this establishes that the default is to not believe either way. If you want to change from that default position, then you need logical justification. In the absence of such justification, you remain as innocent as a baby---which includes being innocent of religion.


6 - Your religion is immoral according to my subjective morality

Religions claim the moral high ground. They say you'll be a better person if you believe their absurdities and embrace their hatreds. When religionists make that move, they need to be rocked back on their heels, confronted with the fact that their religion is ugly by any decent standards, and even by its own proclaimed standards.


7 - Everyone is an atheist to most gods, some of us take it one step further

Religious apology is entirely dependent on equivocation, double standards, sleight of mouth. They use logic to dismiss Thor. The same logic would dismiss Jehovah if they were consistent.

That's not a bad argument, it's a good argument.



8 - You are just delusional, dumb, stupid, blind, indoctrinated, close minded, etc. (personal attacks)

That sounds counterproductive. If you believe that about somebody, why are you even in a discussion with her?

Your goal is to seem like a nice person, a friendly intelligent person with strong moral principles, a person who can defend those principles at least as well as the theists defend theirs.

The emotional part of that, the I'm-a-nice-guy-even-though-I'm-an-atheist part, is essential to achieving your goal.

Your goal, of course, is to plant a seed, to create a little cognitive dissonance that may grow. You won't see anybody convince of anything in a single sitting, not more than a few times in your life. So you just want to seem rational, principled, and nice.

It's hard to seem nice while telling someone she's delusional, dumb, stupid, blind, indoctrinated, and close minded. So, on this point, I am absolutely agreeing with you.

Even if the she insults you first, your move is to keep your dignity and let onlookers see that the theist is the one who is being ugly and vicious.


10 - Equating atheism with success, happiness, less suicide or healthier lifestyles, regarding individuals and nations

I don't know if any of that is true. I do think there's evidence that Christians, especially Catholics, are more criminal. I'm happy to trot that out when Christians are claiming that theirs is the only real morality.


12 - Assuming all theists are irrational and all atheists are rational

Agreed.

[Tonus]

7 - Everyone is an atheist to most gods, some of us take it one step further ---> This is not really an argument in the first place, but it's a little meaningless since it equates atheism with theism, as if not believing in other gods makes theists very similar to atheists.

I think it's a useful point to make, though. Especially in those cases where a theist is using an argument built around the premise that "you can't prove (my) god doesn't exist." There are a great many gods that they cannot prove do not exist, yet they reject them all the same. If we do not apply presuppositions or special pleading, nothing separates their god from the many gods that have come and gone during human history.

There actually is a fairly simple and honest answer to that argument, which is that since they believe in their particular god and that their holy book shows that their god is the only one, they can reject all others on that basis. But then they get back to having to prove that their god is real, and avoiding that is why they went with the "you can't prove he isn't" argument in the first place, IMO.

[Regina]

Pretty sure this list has just "forbidden" almost every argument atheism actually has to throw at religion. Are we supposed to have gags in our mouths, then?



I can agree some of them are totally irrelevant to "does God exist?" though, true