Arguments Atheists SHOULD use

[ChristMyth]

Skeptic Pete started a thread discussing the arguments atheist should never use, so I thought I might take it upon myself to start one that gives the opposite. So here's your chance to really show what it is that you think is the best arguments for the nonexistance for a god, and more specifically, the Christian one.

[Mountain Man]

The only one to use is the burden of proof... which lies on the believer. Until they provide the god itself, there's no reason to argue over anything since there is nothing to argue over.

[Godless Wonder]

Really depends on which alleged god and what arguments are put forth in support of that alleged god.

[Noggin]

I have been snubbed by christians with the argument of multiple One True Religions.

All cannot possibly be God's One and only True religion. Yet they all claim, through very powerful feelings of testimony, that this is so.

When they persist, I go into doom mode. If I sign up for your christian god, I also sign up for the doom of countless other one and only true religion.

Islam: If I die an unbeliever to Islam, I am doomed to wear a skin of molten lava for eternity

Eckankar: If I reject Sri Harold Kemps teacings, I am doomed to start the reincarnation process all over again in the next life as mere plant fungus

Mormonism: If I reject Mormonism, I am doomed to be a son of perdition cast into outer darkness with much "...weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth"

Jehovah's Witness: If I reject JW's, gospel, I am doomed to become only a void in god's mind in the next life.

Etcetera. You get the idea.

That makes god one helluhva confused god dude.

And by snubbed, that means the Christian usually never talks to me again or answers the post in whatever forum I may find myself doing this roast.

Just my 2 cents.

Noggin

[MrWhy]

Family, culture and country of birth determine which, if any, god an individual believes in. This relationship between an individual’s place of birth, and their religious belief is strong evidence that religions are created and perpetuated by culture.

And

For a god with the power to create our universe, it would have been easy to leave some conclusive evidence. If that had happened, centuries of abuse, and destructive conflict over religion would have been prevented. There are a number of theists counter arguments to this. My favorite is that we could not handle the (conclusive) truth.

[StaticAge]

Jehovah's Witness: If I reject JW's, gospel, I am doomed to become only a void in god's mind in the next life.
That's not true, JW's believe in a possible ressurection for many who never accepted what we say, based on what Jesus said would be a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous (note we do not believe in any sort of hellfire sort of afterlife, that the ressurection is an earthly recreation of human life).

[EnterTheBowser]

It really depends on what kind of believer you're facing. If it's a real fundamentalist book-thumper, you're best off, I think, going the Biblical criticism route (if they're Christian). For them, that book is everything; if you can pick holes in it, then works pretty well. If they're more of a religious liberal who isn't too concerned with the specific word of God, the problem of evil is very effective - it appeals very strongly to the emotions. And once you get to the people who are very intellectual about their religion, you can start to deploy the more sophisticated arguments, like contradictory properties, physical minds, TANG, parsimony, etc.

I don't really know where to put nonbelief and hiddenness.

[Terrible Heresy]

At one time I was trying to think up clever little quotes and I came up with...

"Either God created man, or man created God. Well, I see men every day"

...I found that my attempt at a whimsical phrase was a pretty strong argument.

It very much strengthens the old "burdern of proof argument". It's not just a matter of theists having to prove they are right with thier claim. It starts with the very powerful dictomony that either one created the other, and then asserts that while we know for sure one exists, we have no proof of the other.

So not only is the burden of proof on the theist, but from simply reasoning we can see that the argument is already very much in favor of the atheist. I really like this argument because it's simple, undeniable, and applies to virtually every religion out there.

Another argument that was probably the main reason for my disbeleif in what I was taught growing up is the contradictions of free will, creator God, and omnipotent being. It was reasoning I used long before I knew of other problems and the mounds of historical problems with Christianity.

We know that the theist must cling to the free will argument. The problem of evil has made it so that, when you get right down to it, theists pretty much have to use the free will defense. The problem is that an all knowing God supposedly made us.

There are at least two contradictions here that I can see. One in pure definition, and one in what just about anyone would see as being moral.

1. Free will is, at best, a joke when applied to an all knowing, creator God. A contradiction at worse. God made us what we are. Furthermore, he knew what we would be. Furthermore, to an all knowing creator God, free will is just a facade. Our actions are all shaped by who we are, and our envirionment. All our actions of free will are not just known ahead of time, they are designed to be that way. The fact that God created us, and that he knows everything leaves no alternative.

2. God made us who we are, and yet punishes us for it. This applies to both how he made human nature and more individual decisions. For instance, the sex drive of humans. It lies at the very core of our being, and yet God, and then Jesus, laid down VERY tight restrictions on how we can act in relation to sexual thoughts and actions.

This is a problem in that original sin basically becomes a setup by God. Every man sins, so he needs redemption. This is true, if you go by what God considers is a sin. The problem is, that God has made us in a way, and then gave us rules that make it about as possible not to sin as it is not to breath. When you think about it this way, you can draw many comparisons to God and a drug dealer.....

On a more individual note; atheists. God made us who we are. Why then does he punish us for what we are? We hear stories of personal expiriences of being touched by God, and filled with the spirit. Why then does God favor these people with these things that help them believe and not others? We are told to just beleive. But some people require more proof then others. It is who we are. We can no more force ourselves to beleive something we don't then we can jump over a building. We are the more crictical of us punished while the faithful have been blessed with a less critical nature?

The problem, again, is that these tendancies and how the envirionment has influenced us is all designed by an all knowing creator God. It has to be. The very fact that there are atheists proves that there is no God. Or, more precisely, the fact that there are people that have died as atheists. As we all know, one of the big hopes and promises of theists is that we will see the light later on in our lives.

[mituckius]

Mormonism: If I reject Mormonism, I am doomed to be a son of perdition cast into outer darkness with much "...weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth"


err......Actually, you only go to outer darkness if you know for a fact that Mormonism/God is true and still deny it. Otherwise, you go to the telestial. What's funny though, is that the telestial kingdom is described as being 1000 times more glorious than earth. It's a level of heaven. There are 3 kingdoms that people go to when they die: Celestial, terrestrial, and telestial. Mormon, Non-Mormon, you're good to go. lol
So, I guess that means Hitler went to paradise. :rolling:

Wow, being indoctrinated by the Mormon religion really paid off. What practical use that knowledge gave me. Pfffffttttt fuck that.

[IgnorantBliss]

regarding mormons - you gotta love a religion that baptized Einstein post-mortem, condemned caffeinated sodas until a mormon bought coke and doesn't kick you off the roster for sometimes YEARS after you've openly renounced the church (happened to friends of mine)

Anyway, I try not to argue w/ churchies. They just give me this blank look thats a combo of "You're going to hell" and "What the hell are you talking about?"

so... I use their own weapon on them, now I just stare blankly, look a little concerned/confused and ask "Why?" a lot.

You don't believe in god at ALL?
Uh, no.
Why?
Why should I?
Uh, cuz you might go to hell?
Why would that happen?
Cuz you're renouncing God and probably sinning a lot and so hes not going to forgive you
Why? I thought he was merciful. And why is everything a sin?

and on and on... I dont debate... I just ask questions, which is a key problem with any kind of faith - there is no "why"...

[Ojuice5001]

regarding mormons - you gotta love a religion that... condemned caffeinated sodas until a mormon bought coke...

A major religion that prohibited carbonated drinks? Oh, I wish I had been a Mormon priest, so that I could have worked to prolong the status quo, and slow down the process whereby the American people became heavy drinkers of that vile brew, that beverage that is vastly inferior to something like, oh say, orange juice.;)

But then, you can't expect a religion like Mormonism to stick to its religious taboos even though these taboos make the religion unpopular. I mean, we're talking about a religion founded in America that has been reluctant to take a firm stand against polygamy.:p

[mituckius]

Not sure how you edit these things. But in my first statement I meant to say: You only go to outer darkness if you know Mormonism/God is a fact and still DENY it.

Sorry if there was any confusion.

I stuck it in there for you. BB

[Alf]

At one time I was trying to think up clever little quotes and I came up with...

"Either God created man, or man created God. Well, I see men every day"

This is a horrible argument for atheism. It is a bad argument for theism.

You see lots of men every day, so God has obviously done a good job. You see no gods around so man hasn't done a good job of creating gods. Consequently one must conclude that God exist since we see his product. We also see that men are lazy or unable to create any gods since we do not see them around.

Of course, the argument is flawed because the dichotomy you present is a false dichotomy. If the dichotomy were true we would necessarily have that God or gods exist since if man created God then he did create a god so there is a god and if god created man then god must also exist otherwise he couldn't create man. Thus, in either case god exist if the dichotomy were true.

Thus, the dichotomy is a false dichotomy and if there is no god then the dichotomy is false.

Alf

[Killer Mike]

Skeptic Pete started a thread discussing the arguments atheist should never use, so I thought I might take it upon myself to start one that gives the opposite. So here's your chance to really show what it is that you think is the best arguments for the nonexistance for a god, and more specifically, the Christian one.

Suppose someone said that they believed a tiny invisible fairy was on their right shoulder. My response would be to ask "What is a fairy? and then "What makes you think there is a tiny invisible fairy on your right shoulder?"

This analogy demonstrates that it is up to the theist to define what is a "god" and then prove that "god" exists. The only argument an atheist needs is that the theist has not defined what a god is, nor has proven that one exists.

It would be silly to try and "prove" that there is no invisible tiny fairy on his/her shoulder. Unless one can tell us what a "god" is and then prove its existence, the debate is over.

[trendkill]

The argument from evil is one of the best to use, probably. It's got that visceral appeal as well as logical strength. What? God is 100% good, God created everything, and the world is hopelessly corrupt? Give me a break.

The other big one is the argument from religious confusion. It may be tough to bring home, but its logical strength is devastating. The old standby of pointing out that the vast majority of people believe based on what they were taught as children seems to be a good starting point. And it should be effective on any religious experience that points to an entire philosophical worldview, not just omnimax-type monotheism.

[TomboyMom]

Not an argument, exactly, but try to persuade the person to ask themselves the question: Does God exist?

[Noggin]

Noggin wrote: Jehovah's Witness: If I reject JW's, gospel, I am doomed to become only a void in god's mind in the next life.

Static Age responded:

That's not true, JW's believe in a possible ressurection for many who never accepted what we say, based on what Jesus said would be a resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous (note we do not believe in any sort of hellfire sort of afterlife, that the ressurection is an earthly recreation of human life).

Noggin replies: Thanks for that. I studied with the JW's for about a week to get to know what they believe. I was witnessed to and they seemed to believe that there was a powerful sweetness of jehovah's spirit telling me that what they were teaching was revealed truth and I was now accountable to it.

Here is the support behind my words, Static Age:

According to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, when you die, you cease to exist: (see "Let God be True", p. 59, 60, 67.) On Judgment Day, only faithful Jehovah's Witnesses will be resurrected to life eternal on Paradise Earth. The rest of all mankind will be annihilated, wiped out, made to not exist with no eternal punishment in a fiery hell.

So then that leaves me only to define who IS to be saved according to the JW's. I can provide that with this cut and paste info:

According to the Watchtower Organization, Feb. 15, 1983, p. 12, there are four requirements for salvation as taught by the Watchtower magazine.

1) Jesus Christ identified a first requirement when he said in prayer to his Father: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3) Knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ includes knowledge of God’s purposes regarding the earth and of Christ’s role as earth’s new King.

2) Many have found the second requirement more difficult. It is to obey God’s laws, yes, to conform one’s life to the moral requirements set out in the Bible. This includes refraining from a debauched, immoral way of life. — 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; 1 Peter 4:3, 4.

3) A third requirement is that we be associated with God’s channel, his organization. God has always used an organization. For example, only those in the ark in Noah’s day survived the Flood, and only those associated with the Christian congregation in the first century had God’s favor. (Acts 4:12) Similarly, Jehovah is using only one organization today to accomplish his will. To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it.

4) The fourth requirement is connected with loyalty. God requires that prospective subjects of his Kingdom support his government by loyally advocating his Kingdom rule to others. Jesus Christ explained: "This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth." (Matthew 24:14) Will you meet this requirement by telling others about God’s Kingdom?

That is where I came up with if one rejects The WatchTower group, he or she is doomed to become a void in god's mind. That and the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses made this Void thing very clear to me when I studied with them. I rejected their message and they became alarmed at my awful fate in the next life. It seemed to really bother them that I just casually discarded what they had to say. They kept calling me. I started to feel that they really meant it. *yawns** Oh well.

Please correct me with substance or web links or reasonable tract literature so that I can change my perception to a more accurate representation of JW belief.


err......Actually, you only go to outer darkness if you know for a fact that Mormonism/God is true.

Yeah, I know it, Mituckius. Actually, I preached it in Spain for 2 years as a Mormon missionary. I guess I was talking more in terms of myself going to outer darkness since I was a mormon missionary with a rock solid testimony and now I am an apostate.

I'll make a fine son of perdition.

Noggin

[Terrible Heresy]

You see lots of men every day, so God has obviously done a good job.

You are skipping a step. You know, the step where you don't mindlessly assume that God exists. I did not say this disproves God, I said that from the very starting point of burden of proof, this adds to it. We know men exist. We do not know if Gods exist. We know one created the other. So from the very start, one is more likely then the other.

Of course, the argument is flawed because the dichotomy you present is a false dichotomy. If the dichotomy were true we would necessarily have that God or gods exist since if man created God then he did create a god so there is a god and if god created man then god must also exist otherwise he couldn't create man. Thus, in either case god exist if the dichotomy were true.

First off: I don't see how the dichotomy can be false. The bottomline is that either God created us. Or God did not create us, and we created him. I will admit that it does not include religions that say God is not the creator, or that aliens created us, but lets be honest, most religions you encounter aren't gonna claim that.

Second off: Sorry, call me stupid, but I am not following your reasoning that if man created God, then there is a God. The whole point is that if man created God, then there is no God. Every religious person in the world will agree with you on this point. There have been thousands of Gods made by man. They aren't all true. Everyone can agree with this. They simply disagree that thier God was not made up.

Thus, the dichotomy is a false dichotomy and if there is no god then the dichotomy is false.

You seem to just be nitpicking. I am talking about the Gods as real beings that actually did the things they are claimed to have done. Not constructs in the minds of thier followers:confused:

[EnterTheBowser]

The reason it is not a dichotomy is because you equivocate between two notions of God. The first (God created men) is God as a real being who created the universe etc. The second is God as a human idea, without the power to do anything - God as a fairy tale.

And as pointed out previoisly, even if we ignore the equivocation, the logic doesn't work. Let's phrase the claim like this: (M-->G) or (G-->M). The first half - (M-->G) - is the claim "God created men" - it means that God is a necessary condition for the existence of men (that men would not exist unless God made them). The second half, G-->M, means that men are a necessary condition for the existence of God (that God would not exist unless we made him). And we have the obvious truth M, that men exist. So what conclusions can we draw from the following pair of statements:
(M-->G) or (G-->M)
M
----------------------



The answer: nothing follows from the above statements.

[Terrible Heresy]

The reason it is not a dichotomy is because you equivocate between two notions of God. The first (God created men) is God as a real being who created the universe etc. The second is God as a human idea, without the power to do anything - God as a fairy tale.

The dichotomy is not of God specifically, but of creation. The question is what created God and man. In whatever form God is. The mutually exclusive parts are that one created the other. As I admitted, this is not perfect, but it does apply to most religions. This is not meant to be a dichotomy of everything, but of what religions claim. Which is basically all it need apply to since the whole claim of God creating man comes from religion anyway:p

And as pointed out previoisly, even if we ignore the equivocation, the logic doesn't work. Let's phrase the claim like this: (M-->G) or (G-->M). The first half - (M-->G) - is the claim "God created men" - it means that God is a necessary condition for the existence of men (that men would not exist unless God made them). The second half, G-->M, means that men are a necessary condition for the existence of God (that God would not exist unless we made him). And we have the obvious truth M, that men exist. So what conclusions can we draw from the following pair of statements:
(M-->G) or (G-->M)
M
----------------------

The answer: nothing follows from the above statements.

So walk me through this one. If we know G created M or M created G...how exactly does knowing M exists not automatically make it more probable that M created G.

I can not apply this to mathmatics, as you have, because it doesn't seem to have a parrallel. Or none that I can think of. But scientifically speaking it seems my point would be right.. If you find a pot on an island with a known ancient culture, are we going to assign the making of that pot to that ancient culture, or that it was created by Atlantians because that island is one of the places Atlantis beleivers claim might have been the site of Atlantis?

[show_no_mercy]

And as pointed out previoisly, even if we ignore the equivocation, the logic doesn't work. Let's phrase the claim like this: (M-->G) or (G-->M). The first half - (M-->G) - is the claim "God created men" - it means that God is a necessary condition for the existence of men (that men would not exist unless God made them).


I don't think that's correct. In the case that (M -> G), God is a consequent of man. Therefore, man is necessary (the antecedent) for the existence of god. It's just backwards, that's all.

So walk me through this one. If we know G created M or M created G...how exactly does knowing M exists not automatically make it more probable that M created G.

P1: (M - > G) or (G -> M)
P2: M
-----
???

In the case above, (M - > G) would be true given M. If P1 is an exclusive "or" (more than likely since both conditions can't be true, barring the equivocation fallacy) then (M -> G) being true would mean that (G -> M) would have to be false. Saying that (G -> M) is true based on having M be true is affirming the consequent, a fallacy.

[Autonemesis]

Arguments specific to Christianity that I find are very compelling:

If a burglar enters my home and steals some valuables, it's not right if I punish someone known to be innocent of this crime. Punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty is not morally acceptable.

Besides, the story says Jesus rose from the dead on the 3rd day, so where is the sacrifice?

[StaticAge]

Noggin replies: Thanks for that. I studied with the JW's for about a week to get to know what they believe. I was witnessed to and they seemed to believe that there was a powerful sweetness of jehovah's spirit telling me that what they were teaching was revealed truth and I was now accountable to it.

Here is the support behind my words, Static Age: [snip]

That is where I came up with if one rejects The WatchTower group, he or she is doomed to become a void in god's mind. That and the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses made this Void thing very clear to me when I studied with them. I rejected their message and they became alarmed at my awful fate in the next life. It seemed to really bother them that I just casually discarded what they had to say. They kept calling me. I started to feel that they really meant it. *yawns** Oh well.

Please correct me with substance or web links or reasonable tract literature so that I can change my perception to a more accurate representation of JW belief.If we didnt believe lives could be saved by teaching people the Bible, Jehovah's Witnesses obviously wouldnt bother with it, and as you noted even the people who called on you felt that way. I didnt mean to imply JW's think everyone will be resurrected, only that it is God who makes that judgment, not us, and that even many "unrighteous ones" would also be resurrected (Acts 24:15; John 5:29; Lu 23:42,43). There have been many publications and articles explaining this, including:
Insight On the Scriptures Vol II under the entry "Resurrection"
Reasoning From the Scriptures pp 339,340
United In Worship chapter 9
You Can Live Forever In a Paradise Earth chapter 20
and various Watchtower articles, most recently the Watchtower of May 1, 2005 this year in fact which had an article explaining that many people, even unrighteous ones, would recieve a resurrection, however, some like Adam and Eve, or Judas Iscariot, would have been judged worthy of Gehenna, and not receive a resurrection. The difference is that those who die faithful will have a "better resurrection" (Heb 11:35) in that they do not need to be tested during the millenial reign of Christ after Armageddon, but are resurrected to an everlasting life.

[Reanimator]

I opened this thread hoping to gain valuable insight and instead I got arguments over the details of JW/Mormon hell. It's all basically the same, and I'm sure whoever is condemning you will gladly inform you if you ask nicely...so what the hell difference does it make? :devil1:

Anyway, what works for me (like another poster stated) is making them question ask justify Biblical contradictions and holes, namely the Great Flood. I find the flood a good starting place with fundamentalists because if they deny that the flood was in fact global and start debating me about the word "yom" I can attack them for interpreting the supposed "true word of god" and go on from there. If they believe the flood was actually global, this opens up many wounds you can prod such as "where is the evidence?","where did the evidence go?","why did god hide the evidence, and why wouldnt he want to leave something as a testament to his deed?", etc.

Another tactic that works well for me is (yet another one mentioned above) is "doom mode".

One that works surprisingly well against creationist/ID arguments is the "flawed design" argument where you point out that "no sensible engineer would make it like THIS" and point out that if the creator is a perfect god how could his design be flawed in any way?

[steamer]

Arguments from within a worldview are fun.

Atheist: Why don't you just become Jewish, there are far fewer assumptions, same god, presumably same heaven or what not.

Christian: Uh! Because they didn't accept Christ!

Atheist: So god's chosen people are going to hell? Kinda sucks to be them, don't you think?

Christian: Well uh, uh....

[Barefoot Bree]

[Mod hat] Give me one good reason not to split out the logic hash. One. [/Mod hat]

Personally, not having gotten into very many of these type of conversations, the ones I did get into I pretty much stick with one simple question: "How do you know you are right, and every other True Believer wrong?" If I can just get them to think about religious plurality, I consider it a victory.

But then I'm a wuss at debates. I prefer to read them, not participate.

[Reanimator]

[Mod hat] Give me one good reason not to split out the logic hash. One. [/Mod hat]

Personally, not having gotten into very many of these type of conversations, the ones I did get into I pretty much stick with one simple question: "How do you know you are right, and every other True Believer wrong?" If I can just get them to think about religious plurality, I consider it a victory.

But then I'm a wuss at debates. I prefer to read them, not participate.

I am exactly the opposite, but sadly I am given more opportunities in the written realm than than in face-to-face debate. Internet debate also pisses me off because someone can walk away without saying anything after you have just posted the most eloquent paragraph of your life.

[EnterTheBowser]

The dichotomy is not of God specifically, but of creation. The question is what created God and man. In whatever form God is. The mutually exclusive parts are that one created the other. As I admitted, this is not perfect, but it does apply to most religions. This is not meant to be a dichotomy of everything, but of what religions claim. Which is basically all it need apply to since the whole claim of God creating man comes from religion anyway:p

The point is that the word "God" is being used in different ways in two different contexts. On one side of the "dichotomy," it means "a real, all-powerful supreme being," on the other side it means "a story humans made up." That's what's being equivocated.

So walk me through this one. If we know G created M or M created G...how exactly does knowing M exists not automatically make it more probable that M created G.

I can not apply this to mathmatics, as you have, because it doesn't seem to have a parrallel. Or none that I can think of. But scientifically speaking it seems my point would be right.. If you find a pot on an island with a known ancient culture, are we going to assign the making of that pot to that ancient culture, or that it was created by Atlantians because that island is one of the places Atlantis beleivers claim might have been the site of Atlantis?

I don't understand the parallel. And believe me when I tell you that logically, nothing follows from the two statements. Just think about it.

[EnterTheBowser]

I don't think that's correct. In the case that (M -> G), God is a consequent of man. Therefore, man is necessary (the antecedent) for the existence of god. It's just backwards, that's all.

You are wrong. If X is a necessary condition of Y, what we mean is that in every instance that we find Y, we'll find X. This, logically speaking, comes to Y-->X (if we find Y, we'll find X). This is contrasted with a sufficient condition - finding an X is enough to know that there is a Y. X-->Y. I think the idea of causality is what's got you confused.

P1: (M - > G) or (G -> M)
P2: M
-----
???

In the case above, (M - > G) would be true given M. If P1 is an exclusive "or" (more than likely since both conditions can't be true, barring the equivocation fallacy) then (M -> G) being true would mean that (G -> M) would have to be false. Saying that (G -> M) is true based on having M be true is affirming the consequent, a fallacy.

No, M-->G does not follow from M. This is just basic logic. To make it more explicit, (M-->G) is logically equivalent to (~M or G) (with "~" meaning "not") (if you doubt it, make up a truth table). M actually tells us that half the disjunction is false (~M is false if M is true); we can't conclude that the disjunction is therefore true. On the other hand, M does tell us that G-->M is true - but that doesn't really tell us anything as far as drawing conclusions go. To make it even more clear why we can't draw conclusions from the above statement, follow my logic.

M
M or G
(M or G) or (~M or G)
(~M-->G) or (M-->G)
(G-->M) or (M-->G)

The point is that the "dichotomy" is actually entailed by the statement "men exist;" it should then be clear that adding the dichotomy to the fact that men exist doesn't get us anywhere that simply knowing that men exist couldn't get us.

As a note, what affirming the consequent really means is:
A-->B
B
-------
A

This is not a logically valid argument. On the other hand, this is:

B
----
A-->B

[Noggin]

Arguments from within a worldview are fun.

Atheist: Why don't you just become Jewish, there are far fewer assumptions, same god, presumably same heaven or what not.

Christian: Uh! Because they didn't accept Christ!

Atheist: So god's chosen people are going to hell? Kinda sucks to be them, don't you think?

Christian: Well uh, uh....

Steamer... :notworthy I simply am unworthy to lick the fungus between your toes.

Chief fungus licker:

Noggin:Cheeky:

disclaimer: I do not engage in fungus licking, this comment was designed as dry humor may it be seen and be accounted as such

(I have to put disclaimers in like this otherwise I might get odd email from foot fettish people.)

[wiploc]

Skeptic Pete started a thread discussing the arguments atheist should never use, so I thought I might take it upon myself to start one that gives the opposite. So here's your chance to really show what it is that you think is the best arguments for the nonexistance for a god, and more specifically, the Christian one.


The contradictions in the bible.

The unfairness/immorality of hellfire is so great that any decent person who believes in the efficacy of prayer must pray that Christianity is false.

The Pawnbroker argument (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=812487#post812487): Since every argument I've heard from the Christians so far has been transparently false and fraudulent, it's reasonable for me to generalize that they are all false and fraudulent.

The problem of evil. (The logical problem of evil; it's bulletproof.)

Refutation of whatever argument the person you're talking to thinks supports the existence of god: free will defense, first cause, whatever.


Whatever logical argument you use, you should make sure to throw in an emotional appeal too. Logic isn't on their side, so they don't believe for logical reasons, so you aren't going to convince a Christian by being logical without showing him that his religion is ugly and unappealing.

crc

[mituckius]

Yeah, I know it, Mituckius. Actually, I preached it in Spain for 2 years as a Mormon missionary. I guess I was talking more in terms of myself going to outer darkness since I was a mormon missionary with a rock solid testimony and now I am an apostate.

I'll make a fine son of perdition.

Noggin

Ouch! They tried to get me to go on one, but I just ignored them. They brought my entire class over to my house one day when I was younger. I just have a way of getting pissed off when people try to use peer pressure to get me to do things. I figured out their tricks fast; they disgusted me.

[parsimony]

My personal favourite is to point out the special pleading given to god. A la 'who created god?' I think that many believe in God because of the problem of infinite regression and prefer to stick a creator in there. And to point out that saying god is infinite and eternal is less probable than the universe is infinite and eternal. The fact that god does not stand up to well constructed arguments was the death knell for my beliefs in a creator and I suspect for many of you, I think it may be effective for others.

[Aravnah Ornan]

In my experience, the best argument is whichever argument goes to the core of a particular believer's belief system. For example, the sort of argument from Biblical contradictions that may make a Biblical literalist deconvert on the spot may not even make a liberal Methodist pause.

I like to ask people why they believe and then attack the specific reason that they give. I recently tried that on someone who was trying to convince me that his deity was a logical necessity; in a few minutes, I managed to get him to concede that he believed in his deity because it felt good.

Then again, sometimes I just let people babble and then catch them in a contradiction. It's amazing how often that works.

[makebate dags]

Skeptic Pete started a thread discussing the arguments atheist should never use, so I thought I might take it upon myself to start one that gives the opposite. So here's your chance to really show what it is that you think is the best arguments for the nonexistance for a god, and more specifically, the Christian one.

I think proving that god doesn't exist beyond a shadow of doubt would be the best one. Sort of like a "one post conversion" type of thing where any theist reading it would end their belief in god upon reading it; sort of thing. Anyways...

In regards to proving non-existence; I think the tough part of that would be proving non-existence.-heh As simple as that might sound to a christian ie; "Prove god doesn't exist" there isn't a way to do that; AFAIK. ie; Putting the burden of proof on the atheist. 'Cause I'd like to know that one if someone has it.

Oh! Wishful thinking (http://www.skepdic.com/wishfulthinking.html)though is the one hinge I like to grease when I hear it squeeking. Can't say if it's been effective though as I don't really work at debating these things as much as I'd like to due to whatever ad hocs I come up with.-heh

- Dags

[AZSuperman]

My favorite place to start with Fundies is in Genesis... with the Adam and Eve story:

Atheist: Tell me about the fall of man.
Christian: Well, God created a perfect world, man introduced sin into the world, and Jesus died for our sins.
Atheist: How did man introduce sin into the world?
Christian: He went against God.
Atheist: When Adam ate the apple?
Christian: Yeah.
Atheist: And why is that is sin?
Christian: Because God told them not to eat the fruit, and they did it anyway.
Atheist: Going against God is a sin?
Christian: Exactly. now they're usually getting a little cocky.
Atheist: And sins are evil?
Christian: Exactly, that's why Jesus' sacrifice is so important.
Atheist: So going against God is evil?
Christian: Yes. (Making them admit this repeatedly is very important, it makes it harder for them to back out later.)
Atheist: What tree was the fruit that Adam and Eve ate growing on?
Christian: The tree of knowledge.
Atheist: Knowledge of what? (refer them to Gen 2:9 if they don't know)
Christian: It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Atheist: So you're saying God punished them for doing something evil, before they knew it was evil?
Christian: No... um..
Atheist: And the rest of us are still suffering because of Adam and Eve did something they didn't know was wrong?
Christian: No... it's not like that.
Atheist: Wait a minute, you said God created a perfect world... In the perfect world Adam and Eve were unable to distinguish between good and evil. God punished them for learning.
Christian: That's not what I said. They knew that eating the fruit was wrong, God told them not to do it.
Atheist: But if they were created without the knowledge that going against God's word was evil, then they wouldn't have any reason NOT to eat the fruit.

[AZSuperman]

Another good place to start is with a retelling of the basic Christian theology:

So... God came to earth and killed himself in order to satisfy his own bloodlust? Wouldn't it have been easier to just snap his fingers?

You'll usually get arguments like: The price for sin is blood, Christ had to die to pay the price!

Which can easily be countered with: "Who set the price?"

[wiploc]

Another good place to start is with a retelling of the basic Christian theology:

So... God came to earth and killed himself in order to satisfy his own bloodlust?

I like to use the busboy argument: You go into a restaurant and ask for a glass of water. The waiter brings you the water; then he says you owe a billion billion dollars for it. You say you can't pay it; you don't have that much. So the waiter kills the busboy and says that pays your debt. Is this a good restaurant? Do you want anything more to do with it?

crc

[Agemegos]

I like to use the busboy argument: You go into a restaurant and ask for a glass of water. The waiter brings you the water; then he says you owe a billion billion dollars for it. You say you can't pay it; you don't have that much. So the waiter kills the busboy and says that pays your debt. Is this a good restaurant? Do you want anything more to do with it?

It's worse than that, because we didn't ask for the water.

"You go into a restaurant. The waiter says you owe a billion billion dollars because some bloke called 'Adam' asked for a glass of water. You say you can't pay it; you don't have that much. So the waiter kills the busboy and says that pays your debt. Is this a good restaurant? Do you want anything more to do with it?"

[makebate dags]

Didn't consider this yesterday but the atheist testimony thread is chocked full of things that folks considered as "good arguments" when deconverting / not saying that all arguments are done on the debating floor as such / just a thought.

Not that I'll repeat them here but one that got me wondering what in blazes "was I believing" or more accurately "who I was believing" / / " was #kissing hanks ass# by Rev. J. Huber. Actually found it while looking through stuff on albinoblacksheep site if IIRC. Humor gets better dissemination in wider circles and to larger groups of people, at least seems that way. It can also catch you with your guard down.-heh

- Dags

[Agemegos]

It's worse than that, because we didn't ask for the water.

In fact, it is even worse than that, because at the end of it the waiter still reckons you owe him everything you have and are.

[Alf]

In fact, it is even worse than that, because at the end of it the waiter still reckons you owe him everything you have and are.

Actually it is worse than that. You never see any waiter. All you see is that some other guy claimed the waiter claimed you owe him a billion billion dollars for the water you didnt order. You also see no busboy, you just hear that guy claim the waiter killed the busboy to pay for your debt.

It really cannot get any worse than that. Not in your wildest fiction can anyone come up with this if they started from scratch. I believe because it is absurd comes to mind here.

The only way you can understand how people could cook up something like this is to look at the history and see how the puzzles get forced together in the same way that a 3 year old might try to cram a 1000 piece puzzle together without care if they fit or not.

Alf

[Agemegos]

Actually it is worse than that. You never see any waiter.

I see it now!


THE GOOD NEWS

Two middle-aged, tough-looking, Italian guys in dark suits and black shirts call to see me. Strangely, they are wearing their collars back-to front.

Me: G'day.

1st guy in black: There's this restaurant, see.

Me: I guess. There are lots of restaurants….

1st guy in black: Don't be smart. In this particular restaurant, a guy called Adam asked for a glass of water. So you owe the waiter a billiion billion dollars.

Me: A billion billion? That's crazy! I only have about a million and a half.

2nd guy in black: That's okay. You don't have to pay. The waiter killed the busboy, so you're off the hook.

Me: He was arrested and charged with murder?

1st guy in black: Nope. He hung the rap on the Jews.

Me: I don't get it.

2nd guy in black: The waiter loved you so much that he killed the busboy rather than bill you for Adam's water.

Me: O-kay. So why are you here again?

1st guy in black: To collect the million and a half you bucks you have.

Me: Oh. And I guess that if I don't pay up you burn me at a stake?

2nd guy in black: No, no. We don't do that sort of thing.

1st guy in black (sadly): Not any more.

2nd guy in black: But if you don't pay the waiter is going to get you some day….

1st guy in black: …when you least expect it…

2nd guy in black: … and what he does to you then will be much wore than what he did to the busboy.

Me: Peddle crazy someplace else. We're all full up here.

[wiploc]

:d :d :d

[IgnorantBliss]

LOL, man thats funny... seriously busting up

[Alf]

I see it now!

Yep, you got the idea.

This is how christanity appears from our viewpoint.

Alf

[Lunawalk]

It really depends on what kind of believer you're facing. If it's a real fundamentalist book-thumper, you're best off, I think, going the Biblical criticism route (if they're Christian). For them, that book is everything; if you can pick holes in it, then works pretty well. If they're more of a religious liberal who isn't too concerned with the specific word of God, the problem of evil is very effective - it appeals very strongly to the emotions. And once you get to the people who are very intellectual about their religion, you can start to deploy the more sophisticated arguments, like contradictory properties, physical minds, TANG, parsimony, etc.

I don't really know where to put nonbelief and hiddenness.
I don't think that method would work with them. They say " I don't know it must be true. I have faith. They go by faith not evidence, So I guess you have to attack the idea of faith.

[Draygomb]

#1 Draygomb's Paradox - Before Time, God Didn't Have Enough Time To Decide To Create Time.

[Alf]

Skeptic Pete started a thread discussing the arguments atheist should never use, so I thought I might take it upon myself to start one that gives the opposite. So here's your chance to really show what it is that you think is the best arguments for the nonexistance for a god, and more specifically, the Christian one.

Well, not exactly my strongest argument but I think it is in place to mention here.

Unfortunatley, I forgot the name but one poster in alt.atheism back in the good old days of internet when it was young had the following definition of theism which is quite telling:

Theism - the belief that there is an all powerful, all knowing, benevolent being who has created the universe and has the power to control it down to the smallest detail and oversees it and sustains it and who is deeply concerned with what each and every one of us do in bed.

No sane person can subscribe to such a belief.

Of course, it doesn't cover all forms of theism but it does unfortunately cover the vast majority of them.

Alf

[Alf]

You are skipping a step. You know, the step where you don't mindlessly assume that God exists.

It follows from the dichotomy. If you assume the dichotomy is true, then God exist either because he exist and created man or because man exist and created God. It is a question of who created who but both must necessarily exist if the dichotomy is true.


I did not say this disproves God, I said that from the very starting point of burden of proof, this adds to it. We know men exist. We do not know if Gods exist. We know one created the other. So from the very start, one is more likely then the other.

Depends on what you mean by "create" here and what is created. If you mean that man created an image of God then yes, you are right. Man has done so and such an image exist. In fact several of them exist most of which are incompatible with the others.

However, man has not created God per se. It would be a pretty huge feat to create something that is all powerful over the universe. Suddenly we could affect things in galaxies far far away by simply asking God - whom we created - to affect them for us. Since he is all knowing we could simply ask him about life on other galaxies and he could give us answer immediately. Pretty neat! No, as far as I know, no human has ever been able to create a real actual God.


First off: I don't see how the dichotomy can be false. The bottomline is that either God created us. Or God did not create us, and we created him.

Yes, you are right in that either God created us or he didn't. However, if he didn't it doesn't follow that we created God. We cooked up an image of God - a fantasy image of God, but we did not create the genuine article himself.


I will admit that it does not include religions that say God is not the creator, or that aliens created us, but lets be honest, most religions you encounter aren't gonna claim that.

That isn't the issue.


Second off: Sorry, call me stupid, but I am not following your reasoning that if man created God, then there is a God.

Well, if it is a true statement that you have created a chair, then it follows that such a chair must exist. If it is true that man has created god it naturally follows that God must exist - he is simply the product of that creation and if the creation really took place the end product must exist unless it vanished shortly after.


The whole point is that if man created God, then there is no God.

Then man did not create God. He created an image of God - a fantasy a fiction a fairy tale creature. Also, that image of God must necessarily exist as can be proven by looking up in your nearest holy scripture. Indeed, there are a myriad of them, I think something around 30000 different images has been cooked up by men that we have written accounts of.


Every religious person in the world will agree with you on this point. There have been thousands of Gods made by man. They aren't all true. Everyone can agree with this. They simply disagree that thier God was not made up.

Exactly. The god man has created is a made up one. This made up god exist. Unfortunately he is not real. Well, those who believe in that particular God will usually claim he is not made up and is very real but until they can provide evidence for this there is no reason to pay attention to them.


You seem to just be nitpicking. I am talking about the Gods as real beings that actually did the things they are claimed to have done. Not constructs in the minds of thier followers:confused:

The point is that man did not create god that really do the things the believer claim he has done. All man has been able to do is create made up gods that cannot do squat because they are lacking in the existence department.

Alf

[moonwatcher]

The only one to use is the burden of proof... which lies on the believer. Until they provide the god itself, there's no reason to argue over anything since there is nothing to argue over

Exactly, I have no belief in God for exactly the same reason and to exactly the same degree that I have no belief in fairies.....there's no evidence for either. And until someone shells out some good evidence I have no reason to consider either of them plausible concepts.

As to the the omnipotent, omniscient God of Christianity, there is the additional "problem of evil." But this additional argument is really unnecessary. The first is more than sufficient.

[starling]

Since "God" is indistinguishable from random chance, he is not worth worshipping by any means.

[Godbert]

At one time I was trying to think up clever little quotes and I came up with...

"Either God created man, or man created God. Well, I see men every day"




I like this. You could even improve it by asking which is more likely and then create a god on the spot - you can come up with sth less retarded than christianity in 0.5 seconds max.
The problem is of course that one does not really exclude the other, but nice nevertheless.


On another note, for christians its really nice to point out that xtianity is so obviously made up of elements from other completely contradicting religions that were geographically located around the middle east. Jesus for instance is such an obvious Buddha ripoff (mixed with some other previously existing myths/religions of the region) its ridiculous.

[DMC]

I never understood why a fundy would even begin to debate his/her beliefs. These types seem intellectually dishonest when it comes to their beliefs, and one can only hope that is the case, because if someone can actually understand and accept the laws of physics, one should not be able to ignore them for the sake of mental comfort. The same goes for basic logic and reason.

Of the ones who do argue, however, I have found a broad spectrum of beliefs and abilities to attempt to apply reason to them. I have seen people who cannot form a coherent statement, people who do not have a clue when it comes to basic principles of logic, science, physics, etc..., people who seem unable to avoid contradicting themselves, and people who use every word used in Theology to attempt to hide their illogic in rhetoric. However, it almost never fails that the person will fall back on "you just have to believe", because that's about the truest response they could possiby offer. I have seen no compelling evidence for the existance of any god like entity, much less a specific one. There are some theists who will tell you right away that their belief doesn't require reason or logic. I have even been told that I cannot find God until I stop thinking. :D