Are Religions/Religious Arguments Complicated Because...

[Handprint]

the people who believe in them have to create complicatedness to obscure the emptiness of their arguments?

I mean, the argument that No God Exists seems pretty simple to me, but religious people seem to always be chasing their tails, coming up with complex logical and philosophical arguments.

I"m sorry if this thread has been done before.

[edk]

the people who believe in them have to create complicatedness to obscure the emptiness of their arguments?

I mean, the argument that No God Exists seems pretty simple to me, but religious people seem to always be chasing their tails, coming up with complex logical and philosophical arguments.

It does seem odd that it takes so much argument to justify belief, but it doesn't really prove much. Proving seemingly trivial theorems in logic and mathematics can take a huge amount of work.

That said, religious arguments usually boil down into circular reasoning or other similar fallacies. They just use a lot of words to hide the weak point.

[Handprint]

the people who believe in them have to create complicatedness to obscure the emptiness of their arguments?

I mean, the argument that No God Exists seems pretty simple to me, but religious people seem to always be chasing their tails, coming up with complex logical and philosophical arguments.

It does seem odd that it takes so much argument to justify belief, but it doesn't really prove much. Proving seemingly trivial theorems in logic and mathematics can take a huge amount of work.

That said, religious arguments usually boil down into circular reasoning or other similar fallacies. They just use a lot of words to hide the weak point.

I was just thinking that Physics takes a lot of explaining but that doesn't mean it's not true.

[Jackalope]

Personally, I think they're complicated because believers and non-believers aren't thinking on the same level - and neither really understands the other.

[Rev. Rye]

Personally, I think they're complicated because believers and non-believers aren't thinking on the same level - and neither really understands the other.

That's the essential reason I believe arguments for and against the existence of God are ultimately just exercises in mental masturbation: the minds of theists and atheists seem to be operating so differently that they may as well be working on different planes of reality. I once debated with a theist on abortion, and he simply couldn't understand why I couldn't just believe a priori that abortion should be illegal, even if it is necessary to save the mother's life, and I can't understand how he can deny that every reputable current medical authority considers life to end with the end of brain activity. Not that he disagreed with me that life ends with the brain stops; he disagreed with me that it's commonly accepted; he didn't even give a dissenting authority. Furthermore, he couldn't process that posting graphic photos of aborted fetuses (it actually took 600 posts before it came to that, possibly an internet record) is just as a blatant appeal to emotion, possibly more so, than linking to a testimony by a doctor who had to fix the results of back-alley abortions in the days before Roe v. Wade (after all, arguments about morality need emotion to go anywhere). And I can't understand why he can't take the logic of "pictures of aborted fetuses are unpleasant, therefore, abortion should be made illegal" to its logical conclusion of "pictures of open-heart surgery are unpleasant to look at, therefore, open-heart surgery should be made illegal."

Simply put, arguments will not be likely to win converts either way because theists and atheists are on a totally different wavelength.

[thesummerqueen]

I suspect if you asked an atheist who believed in some similar woo-woo-ish thing, the argument would be just as convoluted.

You're playing with something people hold dear to their heart. It shapes their entire lives. Might as well tell me gardening is useless.

[Jackalope]

he disagreed with me that it's commonly accepted; he didn't even give a dissenting authority.

Indeed, I've seen the same kind of behavior with respect to geology, biology, paleontology, archaeology, cosmology, astronomy... the list goes on. Scientific disciplines where specific theories are widely accepted - with no serious dissent except quibbles over specifics.

Where dissenting authorities are presented, they're ones that are fully debunked or far outside mainstream science, usually sources gleaned from apologist websites - and usually the rebuttal is done with evidence and methods we now know to be faulty, and usually quite dated. Sometimes they're just flat out wrong - claiming that scientific theory/law X proves it's impossible when it does no such thing.

That's not to say that mainstream science always is right - but it does correct itself when errors and new facts are discovered.

The same sort will claim that Noah's ark has been found and authenticated, as has the Shroud of Turin, etc. Never mind that those claims have been thoroughly debunked. Classic confirmation bias.

And yet, I get accused of being closed minded for dismissing such unsubstantiated claims without expending effort to personally debunk them. Why should I? Someone else has done the work - the apologist just hasn't looked for or given consideration to the evidence.

Then there's the classic - "How do they know? No one was there.". Argument from ignorance.

It's maddening.

---

Might as well tell me gardening is useless.

Psst. Gardening is useless. Don't tell Summer. Pass it on.

[Anomalocaris]

The theistic notion of conscience and integrity is such that they believe by creating "arguments" too complicated for themselves to understand, they can position themselves to embrace those "arguments" in good conscience.

[Cinjin]

It's complicated because we've had 2000 years of thousands of fucktards adding their own little twisted perspectives to it.

[Minimalist]

Indeed, I've seen the same kind of behavior with respect to geology, biology, paleontology, archaeology, cosmology, astronomy... the list goes on. Scientific disciplines where specific theories are widely accepted - with no serious dissent except quibbles over specifics.

Someone once observed that science advances one funeral at a time.

Religion, OTOH, advances not at all.