Worst Atheist Arguments [Archive I]

Mistress of Tales

August 8, 2003, 09:23 AM

As far as I can understand (no, I'm not Christian, yes, I read too much Pratchett) God has to test people's faith because he knows that he is going to. He is omniscient - this means he can see all that is present, past and in the future. Som he already knows what your response to the test will be, very well - but he also knows that he is going to test you - and so he has to, because from his POV, it has allready happened, or it will happen, so it has to happen, or else he isn't omniscient anymore...

Confused? Well, I think that goes in favour of a conclusion from "Good Omens": "It can't all be a great, big game of chess, it has to be just very complicated solitaire."

Because, well, doesn't it seem like the mortal (?) enemies Yahve and Lucifer really are co-operating? One sorts out the non-believing rejects and the other takes care of the nice people, but they are both working pretty hard trying to find out who is who. And is there any good reasons why Satan should torture those who reject God? On the contrary, I think he should be shaking their hands going "good work, you've got some fiery ateism in you!"

So - if god/shaitan really exists - are they the Big Guys? Or are THEY the ones who are being controlled by a supreme being?

Did I plan to write anything but the first paragraph? Nope!

BlessNot

August 8, 2003, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by conkermaniac
What, in your opinion, are arguments that atheists should never use in a debate with a Christian or any other theist? The biggest no-no in a debate with a Christian would be to ask, "If God loves us, then why does he allow for there to be so much suffering in the world?" Most Christians that I've talked to would respond, "God is testing our faith, as he did Job." Any others?

As a former Christian I can relate to all the excuses fundys have for god not intervening in the affairs of human kind. You might want to try asking an alternative quesiton: Is God in control?

That one was often a turn off for me as a believer let alone now a non-believer.

Yes the answers Christians give can be very frustrating because answers like you have expressed lack substance and have little meaning not to mention illogical and unrational. It's hard for them to actually come out and just admit he doesn't really exist and that we are all alone in this world and we as human beings have to depend on our fellow humans for comfort and support.

DigitalChicken

August 8, 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by conkermaniac
What, in your opinion, are arguments that atheists should never use in a debate with a Christian or any other theist? T

The argument that convinced the atheist that he ought to bother debating them in the first place.

The biggest no-no in a debate with a Christian would be to ask, "If God loves us, then why does he allow for there to be so much suffering in the world?"

I'm sorry. That's actually one of the best if god is considered to be all powerful and all-good.. It's a classic philosophical argument for which there has been no answer.

but as I implied getting into the debates is usually a waste of time.

DC

Jack the Bodiless

August 8, 2003, 12:44 PM

I can't think of any that are as bad as some of the doozies I've seen theists use.

I suppose a bad one would be an argument that reinforces the fundie stereotype of atheists being "in rebellion" against God, due to our lack of morality. Like, maybe, "I can lie in on Sundays now, or have sex with that hot chick next door".

Or maybe that might actually work, on a subconscious level. I often get the impression they think this is our justification, and that they're jealous.

Aravnah Ornan

August 8, 2003, 01:29 PM

One that seems like a straw man, but that I have actually seen used, is the argument that atheists have not matched the atrocities committed by theists. Does the word "communism" ring any bells?

Normal

August 8, 2003, 02:20 PM

"Theists only believe in god because of emotion and not reason"

and

"There is no evidence for god's existence"

Amaranth

August 8, 2003, 03:50 PM

There is no evidence for god's existence

Ahhahahahahahahaha!!

Wait, you're not kidding are you?

Normal

August 8, 2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Amaranth
Ahhahahahahahahaha!!

Wait, you're not kidding are you?

Nope, what constitutes evidence is based on emotion, need, and survival instinct for both the atheist and the theist.

Amaranth

August 8, 2003, 04:15 PM

Nope, what constitutes evidence is based on emotion, need, and survival instinct for both the atheist and the theist.

Funny - Evidence in my world has always been based on sensory input.

Whether or not evidence convinces me of something is based upon the above, however.

Are you sure you don't have the cart and the horse mixed up?

DigitalChicken

August 8, 2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Normal
Nope, what constitutes evidence is based on emotion, need, and survival instinct for both the atheist and the theist.

If that was really true that beliefs of all sorts of things would change instant to instant.

DC

Armchair dissident

August 8, 2003, 04:20 PM

Big bang theory is a bad starting point. It always ends up in an argument of special pleading: "something created the universe: therefore god".

Unfortunately, you'll never convince the theist that given this argument something must have created god.
:banghead:

Normal

August 8, 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Amaranth
Funny - Evidence in my world has always been based on sensory input.

Whether or not evidence convinces me of something is based upon the above, however.

Are you sure you don't have the cart and the horse mixed up?

Your "sensory evidence" is inseparable from your emotion. If you try to look at evidence with a so called �objective eye� you are doing nothing more then what your emotions would perceive as being an �objective eye�.

DigitalChicken

August 8, 2003, 04:55 PM

This must be some usage of "emotions" that I am unfamiliar with.

DC

Ovazor

August 8, 2003, 05:24 PM

I've never liked the "why would god(s) do such and such?" -rethoric (it's not really even an argument). It tends to generate only "god(s) work in mysterious ways" as responeses which lead to nowhere. Furthermore, such questions are really the same as saying "unless you can explain the motives a by defintion in(or super-) human being I'm right" which is kind of appealing to ignorance. Also, I'm fairly good at inventing more or less ridiculous explanations that would -technically speaking- answer the question.

I agree with normal in that all kinds of "I'm rational you're not" arguments are unproductive, and especially "atheists are rational" because this is not true for all. I don't think that "there's no evidence for god's existence" is bad argumentation.

"Look at all the bad things that has been done in the name of religion" is also a poor argument. After all, plenty of bad things has been done in the name of freedom, too.

Never assume that your opponent is a literalist and claim that she/he must hold or holds a view that she/her doesn't really hold. It's a strawman.

Normal

August 8, 2003, 05:27 PM

My point was really that you can't escape yourself. You might like black, I might like white: the reasonable basis for each is not debatable.

Mageth

August 8, 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Normal
Your "sensory evidence" is inseparable from your emotion. If you try to look at evidence with a so called �objective eye� you are doing nothing more then what your emotions would perceive as being an �objective eye�.

Does this apply to when I glance down at my speedometer to see how fast I'm going? Or when I'm weighing some produce at the market? Or when I'm measuring a 2x4 to cut it to length? Or when I'm counting the change I receive from a grocery clerk? Or when I'm counting the number of a particular plant in a grid square when doing a survey? Or when I'm reading the results off lab equipment after an experiement?

There is ample evidence that "sensory evidence" is not dependent on emotion.

sophie

August 8, 2003, 05:47 PM

DigitalChicken : I'm sorry. That's actually one of the best That's actually one of the best if god is considered to be all powerful and all-good.. It's a classic philosophical argument for which there
has been no answer. For this reason omniGOD has to be the giver. omniGOD with the allGOOD character in place warns of giving and taking between earth inhabitants (death and destruction). Unless omniGOD gives as an all good characteristic then humans allow themselves to suffer because to have, they must take from another human who has to lose what was taken in the first place. The loser hurts and suffers. If the exchange is a fair one then suffering becomes extinct. If the taker takes too much from the giver the giver eventually dies.

That's part of the argument, the other part which concerns the allPOWERFUL aspect of omniGOD who has not POWERFULLY intervened to rectify the overbalances between giver and taker, taker and giver, I'll leave to blow your mind another day.

Normal

August 8, 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Mageth
There is ample evidence that "sensory evidence" is not dependent on emotion.

You may believe that, but it's based on an emotive interpretation of what you sense.

Can't get away from yourself ;)

Mageth

August 8, 2003, 06:14 PM

Normal

August 8, 2003, 06:41 PM

I don't mean your emotions can control reality itself. When you see the same old boring green trees and white houses fly by on your way home from work, you aren't willing them to be green and white. You aren't willing the road the be bumpy or smooth.

But any conclusions about reality (including unicorns, gods, and that bumpy road) cannot escape your interpretive and therefore emotion analysis.

Biff the unclean

August 8, 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Normal
But any conclusions about reality (including unicorns, gods, and that bumpy road) cannot escape your interpretive and therefore emotion analysis.

And that's the very reason that we invented (TAH DAH!!!) The Scientific Method. It helps keep us honest so that we don't fall into the "emotional analysis" trap.

JGL53

August 8, 2003, 09:50 PM

The only 'bad' argument that bugs me is when any particular atheist simultaneously tosses out both Ockham's Razor and the truism that one 'can not prove a negative" and makes absolutist statements like 'I deny that any god exists', 'I know that god does not exist', and/or 'The existence of a god is impossible'.

Firstly, the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, especially the extraordinary positive claim. Second, the theory that suffices, and multiplies causes the less, is preferred, i.e., is sufficient.

Why hand over your best weapons to the enemy? Why shift the burden of defending a dogmatic position on to yourself? Those who do this have obviously let their emotional response, i.e., hatred of all things religious, get to them - to the point where it negatively effects their ability to debate effectively.

I'm as much an atheist as anyone else, but I think it's best to keep my mouth shut if opening it causes me, the atheist, to seem the illogical, irrational, dogmatic bad guy, uh, when I'm not., i.e., either argue effectively or STFU :D

Amaranth

August 9, 2003, 01:28 AM

But any conclusions about reality (including unicorns, gods, and that bumpy road) cannot escape your interpretive and therefore emotion analysis.

So, by this logic, if I count the money in my wallet, my conclusion that I have $37 in it is affected by my emotional state? Is a triangle only a triangle because I'm maudlin?

notMichaelJackson

August 9, 2003, 09:55 AM

I personally dislike the "would you really want to live forever" argument. Atheists assume that they know what others want when they make that one.

Secular Pinoy

August 9, 2003, 07:09 PM

JGL53, what about negative claims, don't they also have a burden of proof?

JGL53

August 9, 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
JGL53, what about negative claims, don't they also have a burden of proof?

Uh, yes, they do. E.g., if I make the claim "There is no Santa Claus" or "There is no god", I am putting the burden on myself. As I previously posted, this is an unnecessary shifting of the burden on to myself.

And proving a negative is an impossible acheivement. How exactly would we go about proving god or Santa to be non-existent? We should leave the burden with the one making the positive claim. Then that person is burdened to produce proof, and all my burden would be is to point out or demonstrate the flaws in that person's logic - amuch easier task.

An analogy would be the defence vs. the state prosecutor in a trial. Why would the defence side voluntarily assume the burden of proof? They never do and they never will. That wouldn't be smart.

The burden is entirely on the side that is to prove the positive (guilt). If the defence had to prove their client innocent, well, that might be tough. Innocence is the default position in a court case, analogous to the atheist position in a debate on god or the supernatural. Why give up your default position?

In a nutshell the analogy is:

Innocent until proven guilty.
Non-existent until proven existent.

Secular Pinoy

August 9, 2003, 09:25 PM

So you're saying that since proving a negative is impossible, then it would be ok for negative claimants to not justify their claims, since to do so is to "unnecessarily shift the burden unto themselves?"

In Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877229430/internetinfidels) Michael Martin dedicated the second part of his book to justify strong atheism, that is, the position that claims that god does not exist, a negative existential claim. Do you think that part of his book is unnecessary? Martin claims that countering theistic claims only justifies weak atheism, and that strong atheism have a burden to justify their stronger claim. Is he wrong? The same question can be made against other strong atheists like Jay Lowder, Theodore Drange and Quentin Smith, are they mistaken in shifting the burden of proof upon them?

Or do you think that strong atheism itself is misguided for carrying an unnecesarry burden for making negative existential claims?

Proving a negative universal claim (Cats do not exist outside Earth) is indeed impossible, but does that apply to localized negative claims (Cats do not exist in Mars), or restricted negative claims (Cats that evolved on Earth does not exist outside Earth)?

Soul Invictus

August 9, 2003, 10:40 PM

Originally posted by Yggdrasill
I have never liked the "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" argument, for a omnipotent being it would be infinitely easy to make a rock so heavy he/she/it can't lift it, while still being able to lift it. Why should logic apply to a omnipotent being? We're talking about an omnipotent being, doing anything is easy.

Yggdrasill,

I was hoping you could explain this for me. If God is evident or real there is a manner with which God would make him/her/it self evident to us correct? This would mean that God communicates an understanding of him/her/it self to us. In our human language we have words. These words have meanings that denote certain concepts. I can't see how logic wouldn't operate with a omnipotent being because otherwise we are mindless slaves following God because God said so. That coupled with the inability to reason.

An operating understanding of the concept of omnipotence means all powerful. The contraction "can't" means cannot...which would denote an inability. In Matthew 19:26 when it states that "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. " and in Luke 1:37 it states " For with God nothing shall be impossible. " these phrases clearly recognize concepts that are recognized by humanity: possibility and impossibility. They also aid in recognizing the idea of a concept known as omnipotence.

The "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" argument seems like a perfect example to pose for a classic contradiction. It would only follow that if a scripture is able to base an assertion by appealing to a generally accepted definition, than it appears illogical to than back away from that original stance on the basis that God doesn't have to align with logic.

If one is basing a claim based on an accepted definition, then don't try to wiggle out of it when the claim isn't found to be consistent in theory and then turn around and try assert that your assumption is valid.

Yggdrasill

August 10, 2003, 06:12 PM

Soul Invictus,

what if God merely chooses to communicate with humans with logic? If he/she/it created us with the innate ability to understand logic, but no other forms of reasoning, communication via logic would be the least difficult way to communicate.

An analogy would be computers and humanity. Humanity has created computers, we choose to communicate with computers via programming languages. That doesn't mean that the only way of understanding the world is through programming languages, nor that humanity uses programming languages to understand the world.

Just because a god uses human logics to communicate with humans, doesn't mean that the god always has to use human logics.

And, if you use scripture to show a contradiction, you have moved into the area of the exception at the bottom of my post: Originally posted by Yggdrasill:

I don't really like any other of the arguments either, Occam's Razor is really the only good argument. (Except using case specific arguments, such as contradictions and errors in a supposedly flawless book.) You can use the "Can God make a rock..." argument, if it contradicts some other element of the god. As far as I am aware, the christians aren't claiming that their god is all-logical. :D

JGL53

August 10, 2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
So you're saying that since proving a negative is impossible, then it would be ok for negative claimants to not justify their claims, since to do so is to "unnecessarily shift the burden unto themselves?"...

I'm saying that they should avoid making negative claims at all, since by doing this they unnecessary shift the burden of proof (or justification, as you put it) onto themselves - with the unbearable burden of proving a negative.

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
... In url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877229430/internetinfidels]Atheism: A Philosophical Justification[/url] Michael Martin dedicated the second part of his book to justify strong atheism, that is, the position that claims that god does not exist, a negative existential claim. Do you think that part of his book is unnecessary? ...

Yes.

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
...Martin claims that countering theistic claims only justifies weak atheism, and that strong atheism have a burden to justify their stronger claim. Is he wrong?...

No, he's right - which then brings up my point of "Why would you want to do that, i.e, make a 'stronger' claim that god does not exist? Why take on the burden that is rightfully your opponents and set yourself up to defend an impossibility?"

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
...The same question can be made against other strong atheists like Jay Lowder, Theodore Drange and Quentin Smith, are they mistaken in shifting the burden of proof upon them?...

Yes.

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
...Or do you think that strong atheism itself is misguided for carrying an unnecesarry burden for making negative existential claims?...

Yes, I do.

Originally posted by Secular Pinoy
...Proving a negative universal claim (Cats do not exist outside Earth) is indeed impossible, but does that apply to localized negative claims (Cats do not exist in Mars), or restricted negative claims (Cats that evolved on Earth does not exist outside Earth)?...

Yes on both. Proving a negative is only going to work when 1.both parties agree on definitions at the getgo - i.e., one is not allowed to shift definition to avoid 'losing' the debate and
2. There is a restricted enough space that 100 per cent of it can observed at once.

For example, using your cats, if I make the negative claim "There are no cats in this box" - while pointing to a box in the room. In other words, I'm an acatist, as pertains to the contents of this particular box.

You may counter "Well, I'm a catist. I.e., I believe there is a cat in the box, but the burden is on you to prove there isn't, since you made the original (negative) claim.

Assuming we both agree on the conventional definition of "cat",
I would then go over to the box and open it, showing it to be empty. Acatism wins. Case closed.

This just doesn't work with supernatural or paranormal essences, 'energies', powers, 'influences', entities, beings, persons, spirits, etc., etc. for obvious reasons, don't you think?

Biff the unclean

August 11, 2003, 12:26 PM

Assuming we both agree on the conventional definition of "cat",
I would then go over to the box and open it, showing it to be empty. Acatism wins. Case closed.

Ahhh, well you see there are gods and then there is God. If you are dealing with gods like Venus or Kane then while you could say there are no gods in the box, like the cat, you couldn't say there were no gods. Venus may have just wandered off to the bathroom while you weren't looking.
But on the other hand God is a special case. He is by job description "everywhere." And because He is everywhere by virtue of The Conventional Definition of "God" then anywhere you look becomes the box. So that when I look around my office (which is a sort of a box) and see no deities whatsoever I not only show that there are no Gods in my office I also show that there is nothing fulfilling the Conventional Definition of "God."
So while you may not be able to prove that there are no gods that would not hold true for God. It would be the same for the cat if the Conventional Definition of "Cat" included him being in that box.

DigitalChicken

August 11, 2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by sophie
DigitalChicken : For this reason omniGOD has to be the giver. omniGOD with the allGOOD character in place warns of giving and taking between earth inhabitants (death and destruction). Unless omniGOD gives as an all good characteristic then humans allow themselves to suffer because to have, they must take from another human who has to lose what was taken in the first place. The loser hurts and suffers. If the exchange is a fair one then suffering becomes extinct. If the taker takes too much from the giver the giver eventually dies.

This language is very obscure and difficult to follow.

However, your comment here does not explain unjustified suffering such as babies being born with horrible diseases or vicitms of sexual assualts and so on.

In any case your language is obscure and hard to understand.

DC

Biff the unclean

August 11, 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by DigitalChicken
In any case your language is obscure and hard to understand.

DC
Usually if one is trying to convey information then one writes as clearly as possible.
However if one lacks information and wishes to leave a false impression by bluffing then obscurity is just the ticket.
This works fine when one is participating in a game, when you want to "win". It is the very soul of poker.
But when one is involved in an intellectual discussion it is a waste of everyone's time.

Kruzkal

August 11, 2003, 05:45 PM

Simple logic if the burden of proof is on the non-believer of any given god:

The beleiver any given god is also a non-believer of all gods that contradicts their given god.

Therefore, the believer must also prove all contadicting gods to be false!

__________________

Assumption is the mother of all F ups

wade-w

August 11, 2003, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Usually if one is trying to convey information then one writes as clearly as possible.
However if one lacks information and wishes to leave a false impression by bluffing then obscurity is just the ticket.
This works fine when one is participating in a game, when you want to "win". It is the very soul of poker.
But when one is involved in an intellectual discussion it is a waste of everyone's time.

Indeed. I am reminded of a quote from Edward Abbey:

When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated,
and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove
as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense.

lpetrich

August 11, 2003, 07:27 PM

This thread brings to mind Friedrich Nietzsche's argument:

If there is a god, how could I bear it not to be god! Therefore, there is no god!

JGL53

August 11, 2003, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Assuming we both agree on the conventional definition of "cat",
I would then go over to the box and open it, showing it to be empty. Acatism wins. Case closed.

Ahhh, well you see there are gods and then there is God. If you are dealing with gods like Venus or Kane then while you could say there are no gods in the box, like the cat, you couldn't say there were no gods. Venus may have just wandered off to the bathroom while you weren't looking.
But on the other hand God is a special case. He is by job description "everywhere." And because He is everywhere by virtue of The Conventional Definition of "God" then anywhere you look becomes the box. So that when I look around my office (which is a sort of a box) and see no deities whatsoever I not only show that there are no Gods in my office I also show that there is nothing fulfilling the Conventional Definition of "God."
So while you may not be able to prove that there are no gods that would not hold true for God. It would be the same for the cat if the Conventional Definition of "Cat" included him being in that box.

The key to this, Biff, is my #1 stipulation, i.e., the agreeing on definitions at the getgo. There is two ways to go here:

1. The theist I am debating and I agree on a definiiton of 'god'. If he is a christian, the definition will be the one he prefers, if a muslim then obviously another. He and I would agree in the assumption that the god or "God" of his (this particular theist) is the only one possible. We would agree to atheism regarding all others.

2. The debate might be with a free lance theist or deist, who believes in a generic definition of god. He and I would agree on this definition, and agree to ignore all the 'sectarian' gods as human myth.

I always have agreements like this with theists, settled pretty soon after we start the debate. Is this unusual or something?

So, I let the theist define 'god', then go with that. The burden is on his to prove his god. If he can't, I doubt he will try to just switch to another one. If he does, I will call him on it by reminding him we had agreed on a particular definition.

I don't see the problem. If there is one, it would sure be a lessor one than taking on the burden of proving a negative.

Originally posted by Kruzkal
Simple logic if the burden of proof is on the non-believer of any given god:

The beleiver any given god is also a non-believer of all gods that contradicts their given god.

Therefore, the believer must also prove all contadicting gods to be false!

__________________

Assumption is the mother of all F ups

Well, his burden is to prove HIS god. If he fails at this, he fails and the atheist wins the debate by default. (I assume the theist only cares about HIS god - if he can't prove his god, I doubt he will move on to argue for other gods.). If the theist proves his god, I lose the debate, and I will assume the theist will continue to ignore the others gods, as I would.

As for your byline about 'assumption' - every conscious being who isn't omniscient (like a presumed god) assumes something every time he or she thinks. Assumption is not only the mother of all F ups, it's the mother of all action, effective or non-effective, which is preceded by thought. E.g., assumption is involved when you brush your teeth in the morning. So, is oral hygiene a "F up'?:D

Biff the unclean

August 11, 2003, 07:51 PM

It seems to me JGL that you are asking for the impossible. Which would be getting a Theist to define the God that they believe in. They usually consider it to be their preoperative to be able the change the definition of what god is at will. I once had a Theist change to a second and then a third definition all in the same breath.

Normal

August 11, 2003, 08:10 PM

Here's a definition of god: The creator of energy.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet there it is. Explain.

JGL53

August 11, 2003, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
It seems to me JGL that you are asking for the impossible. Which would be getting a Theist to define the God that they believe in. They usually consider it to be their preoperative to be able the change the definition of what god is at will. I once had a Theist change to a second and then a third definition all in the same breath.

No problem. They never prove anything, anyway, no matter how they twist to a new definition - which is why I'm not a theist. To paraphrase Dorothy Parker "There never seems to be any 'there' there." But it is still their burden to prove the "there", whatever way they define 'there'. It is not my burden to prove that the 'there' is NOT there. So-called 'strong' atheists do choose to accept the burden. Bad move.

Biff the unclean

August 11, 2003, 08:26 PM

That would have been Gertrude Stein talking about Oakland CA, instead of Mrs Parker.
A couple of years back the city fathers renamed a square in Oakland "There Place" So now there is a there there, so there

Kruzkal

August 11, 2003, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by JGL53
As for your byline about 'assumption' - every conscious being who isn't omniscient (like a presumed god) assumes something every time he or she thinks. Assumption is not only the mother of all F ups, it's the mother of all action, effective or non-effective, which is preceded by thought. E.g., assumption is involved when you brush your teeth in the morning. So, is oral hygiene a "F up'?:D

You are assuming that consciousness actually exists and is not just a delusion e.g. would two identical conditions always spawn identical results in terms of choice?

Only kidding . . . I think you're right. That's why we humans fcuk up all the time e.g. "the world is flat or I'll burn you alive"! :D Note that not every mother have children, hence don't always produce a fcuk up, just more than likely.

Originally posted by Normal
Here's a definition of god: The creator of energy.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet there it is. Explain.

Assuming energy cannot be created or destroyed, logic dictates that the only possible solution is that the energy has always been there.

Also note that you just contradicted your given definition of god if energy cannot be created according to your own statement!

__________________

Nobody's perfect
I am a nobody
Therefore
I am perfect

JGL53

August 11, 2003, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Kruzkal
You are assuming that consciousness actually exists and is not just a delusion e.g. would two identical conditions always spawn identical results in terms of choice?
[/COLOR]

If I assume :D that the most famous maxim of Descarte is true - "I think, therefore I am" - and/or I assume :D that solipcism is correct - that the only reality I can know 'for sure' to be real is MY own consciousness (or are these two the same anyway?), then certainly everything else begins with and builds necessarily on assumption.

I guess that I - and other atheists - utilize Occam's Razor to avoid multipling assumptions (regarding ontology) beyond necessity. :D

And there are commonly accepted rational assumptions and irrational assumptions. E.g., if I assume that IF I continue to live for the next ten years, THEN I certainly assume I will have to take into my body a fair amount of caloric sustenance along the way.

Most people would readily agree with that assumption - it seems to fit with how we assume reality works. But if I assume I will get by on just 'breathing properly', without eating any food or taking IV nutrition, then most people will assume my assumption of the truth of 'breatharianism' will lead to my early demise.

Life is just one F-ing assumption after another. :D

Philosoft

August 11, 2003, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by Normal
Here's a definition of god: The creator of energy.
That's not a definition. It's a rewording of the declarative, "God created energy." It only offers information about what God has done, rather than what God is. It presumes "God" has already been defined.

Normal

August 12, 2003, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by Kruzkal
Assuming energy cannot be created or destroyed, logic dictates that the only possible solution is that the energy has always been there.

You take it as an assumption? It has been verified by science.

The logical conclusion is not that it has always been there, current theory places it's existence at 15 (+ - 5) billion years ago.

Originally posted by Kruzkal
Also note that you just contradicted your given definition of god if energy cannot be created according to your own statement!

How? It is a law of our universe, therefore, if it was created, it was from outside our universe.

Normal

August 12, 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Philosoft
That's not a definition. It's a rewording of the declarative, "God created energy." It only offers information about what God has done, rather than what God is. It presumes "God" has already been defined.

If I define god as the creator of energy, how is that a rewording of any declarative?

andy_d

August 12, 2003, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Normal
It is a law of our universe, therefore, if it was created, it was from outside our universe.

Something being "outside" the universe is logically impossible. The idea doesn't make any sense, since the universe, by definition, contains everything and everywhere.

The universe is all you get, folks.

HRG

August 12, 2003, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Normal
Here's a definition of god: The creator of energy.
[quote]
Existence and uniqueness proof, please.
[quote]
Energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet there it is. Explain.

You forget that energy is a signed quantity. Gravitational binding energy is negative. Only the energy saldo obeys a conservation law - within a finite region, of course.

BTW, according to your theology, your God cannot be created or destroyed either, yet he allegedly exists. Explain.

(Hint: perhaps he is one half of a God-Antigod virtual pair ? :D )

Regards,
HRG.

Kruzkal

August 12, 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Normal
You take it as an assumption? It has been verified by science.

Did you miss the part where human preceptions of everything are only assumptions?

Your assertions:
1 - Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.
2 - God created energy.

Assertions 1 & 2 clearly contridicts each other.

Originally posted by Normal
How? It is a law of our universe, therefore, if it was created, it was from outside our universe.

Your recovery assertions:
3 - Assertion 2 is a law limited to the universe.
4 - "Creator" is not in the universe.

Plese provide evidence to prove or at least support assertions 3 & 4.

Originally posted by Normal
The logical conclusion is not that it has always been there, current theory places it's existence at 15 (+ - 5) billion years ago.

Your other assertion:
5 - Energy does not exist prior to 15 billion years ago.

Assertion 5 implies energy has gone from the state of non-existence to existence. Therefore contradicts your assertion 1.

__________________

Nobody's perfect
I am a nobody
Therefore
I am perfect

Peter Kirby

August 12, 2003, 08:27 AM

The worst argument for atheism I can think of right now: I found a contradiction in the Protestant Bible. Therefore there is no god. (This could be worked into an argument against FundamentalistBibleGod, a self-contradictory entity.)

Another bad argument is, "My intellectual or personal hero says that there is no god. Therefore, god does not exist."

Come to think of it, reading these posts, the worst arguments for atheism don't seem as embarrassing as the kind of stuff found on Therefore God Exists (http://facts4god.faithweb.com/thelist.html). The problem of divine hiddenness and the problem of evil being some of the worst? Come on!

best,
Peter Kirby

Soul Invictus

August 12, 2003, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Yggdrasill
Soul Invictus,

what if God merely chooses to communicate with humans with logic? If he/she/it created us with the innate ability to understand logic, but no other forms of reasoning, communication via logic would be the least difficult way to communicate.

An analogy would be computers and humanity. Humanity has created computers, we choose to communicate with computers via programming languages. That doesn't mean that the only way of understanding the world is through programming languages, nor that humanity uses programming languages to understand the world.

Just because a god uses human logics to communicate with humans, doesn't mean that the god always has to use human logics.

To follow your example with the computers, they only operate or function within the confines of said programming language, correct? ( They aren't able to function outside of the "code"that is given, right?) This argument could probably be better articulated from a pc programmer, but I think you get this jist of what I mean. And don't add in the whole AI issue! :)

The point I'm making is even if God would have the choice of operating outside of the confines of human logic, it would not be applicable when he/she/it is operating with us .

Philosoft

August 12, 2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Normal
If I define god as the creator of energy, how is that a rewording of any declarative?
Perhaps if I put the two statements in proximity:
1) God created energy.
2) God is the creator of energy.

It is obvious here that (2) is a mere passive-voice rewording of (1). (1) offers no information about who or what God is, only about some act he has performed; it assumes that whatever the word "God" refers to has been identified. (2) offers the same information as (1), thereby.

Biff the unclean

August 12, 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Philosoft
Perhaps if I put the two statements in proximity:
1) God created energy.
2) God is the creator of energy.

It's amusing that those who can't produce god still have no trouble telling you what his hobbies are

Silent Dave

August 13, 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Normal
Here's a definition of god: The creator of energy.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, yet there it is.

Actually, there it isn't. The net energy of the universe is zero.

Dave

Lunawalk

December 31, 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by DigitalChicken
The argument that convinced the atheist that he ought to bother debating them in the first place.

I'm sorry. That's actually one of the best if god is considered to be all powerful and all-good.. It's a classic philosophical argument for which there has been no answer.

but as I implied getting into the debates is usually a waste of time.

DC Well I tried that arguments and christians brush it off saying that this is the devil's world for the reason suffuring is in the world. Also asking who created god they will just say god is eternal and timeless. Eventually they say you must have faith. You are right debating an comitted christian is fustrating and pointless.

trendkill

December 31, 2003, 10:51 AM

I don't know about the "worst" argument, but I think the most common poor arguments in favor of atheism are various forms of the Problem of Evil, which usually seem to involve fallacies such as argument from ignorance or personal incredulity.

Edit: A much worse one is "the universe wasn't created because the universe is, by definition, all that exists". This might be called "argument by definition", since it appears to be implicitly asserted that the meanings of words determine the nature of the things they describe rather than the other way around.

Gooch's dad

December 31, 2003, 02:00 PM

Soul Invictus

December 31, 2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Gooch's dad
Wow, 3 pages and this is the best of the worst? C'mon, people. Maybe since I frequent Yahoo chat, which has far more in the way of really BAD debate on both sides, I have lots of examples:

The Bible has been translated so many times that we have NO idea what the original writers said.
Christianity is responsible for more deaths throughout history than any other organization or cause.
Constantine decided the books of the New Testament at the Council of Nicea, and burned everthing else, so we have no idea what the "other gospels" might have said.
There is absolutely zero evidence that Jesus existed, therefore Christianity is false.
Jesus is just one of a dozen (or twenty, or whatever) "sons of god" who was killed and resurrected.
Christianity is a retelling of Mithraism, and nothing more.
There were a dozen or more prophets in the first century who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah.
Jesus survived the crucifixion, moved to France with Mary Magdalene, and fathered a dynasty of kings.

I suspect that's the sort of thing that the OP was looking for, hmm?

-Kelly

I'm not quite sure what a fair stance would be in respect to these claims being the worst. Surely they may not be the best. I think the weakest might be the last one (Michael Baigent thinking). I think that a fundamental tenet to the veracity of a deity would be the primacy of said being and/or religion. Since, to the best of my knowledge, all religions purport that their God stems from the beginning of time, that it would naturally follow that any creedance to any God would have to logically go to the first peoples recognized with having a God-consciousness i.e. the first God on the scene. I think this seriously undermines the claims of later Gods, and the fact that there may be similar parallels only damages any other claims of credibility that neo-theists may assert. Duplicitous acts such as book burnings and killings IMO just adds more reason to be skeptical, as these are things done for political and propagandist advantage - something the truth, nor its proponents, have no reason to resort to.

Adora

January 1, 2004, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by conkermaniac
What, in your opinion, are arguments that atheists should never use in a debate with a Christian or any other theist? The biggest no-no in a debate with a Christian would be to ask, "If God loves us, then why does he allow for there to be so much suffering in the world?" Most Christians that I've talked to would respond, "God is testing our faith, as he did Job." Any others?

You sort of covered it in your post. I think any discussion of good/evil, good things for humans/ bad things for humans is null and void in any religious or theologious discussion. But that's just me. Omnipotent theory discounts these ideals whether you believe in the deity or not, and most people who believe in a monotheistic deity claim it is omnipotent. Also, the problem I find in Western society is the Christian influence. You ask them "do you belive in god?" people think instantly "Judaeo Christian Skybrat: yes/no?". As someone who's studied both Buddhism and Hinduism (not as much as BUddhism though) who then tries to explain to people that gods are not nessarcerily a) one god and b) omnipotent and immortal it irks me to no end.

Also, "Bad stuff happened to me, so there is no god" is one I hear often, sadly.

cybergeek

January 2, 2004, 12:06 AM

Falconus

April 10, 2007, 03:13 PM

EthnAlln

April 10, 2007, 03:29 PM

Depends on what sort of Christians one is debating. I have a mental list of those who shouldn't be debated: Episcopalians, Unitarians, United Church of Christ (Congregationalists), Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Methodists. These are liberal mainline churches that have pretty much relegated theology to the imagination and put social consciousness at the forefront. They are close kin, and I wouldn't want to offend them.

Also, I wouldn't debate Catholics, except the ultra-conservative "trad" Catholics. Let the fundies do that. They will wind up in a sort of mutual anathema, since they start from such different premises, and neither will ever accept the other's starting point.

That leaves fundies. For them, I think, it's a perfectly valid argument that there is so much suffering in the world. They are not usually Ockhamists, denying that good and evil are possible options for God, and you can hammer home that God IS the author of suffering, and that he condemns people who couldn't help what they did. It's one of their dogmas that unredeemed people are incapable of avoiding sin. Another says that a person MUST make a public proclamation that he accepts Christ as his personal savior in order to be saved. It follows that God does condemn people for actions they couldn't help taking. Ask them if they think it's OK to condemn a person to death who accidentally ran over somebody with their car while fleeing from a terrorist gunman. Eventually, they'll realize that it means nothing to say "God is good" if in fact human beings are completely incapable of making any judgment of God's actions.

But don't try to argue about "what happened 2000 years ago." There isn't enough undeniable evidence to penetrate their mental armor. What they claim is ludicrously implausible and has a miniscule probability of being true. But it's good enough for them. They have their story, and they're sticking to it. All the careful scholarship of modern archaeologists and linguistic specialists weigh exactly nothing against their traditional reading of the King James Version of the Bible.

Y.B

April 10, 2007, 03:31 PM

Hello, IIDB. Here are my top five stupid arguments that atheists use. Enjoy.

5. Prove Invisible Pink Unicorn's don't exist!

That is a good argument to point out where the burden of proof lies. It is a reply to the theist argument "Well, you can't prove God doesn't exist!".

4. What caused God?
If the theist asserts that everything has a cause (which is not true, btw) it's a fair question.

2. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is silly, therefore whatever it is making fun of must be just as silly, or even sillier than the initial parody.
Wrong. The argument is about burden of proof (see Invisible Pink Unicorn above).

And the number one, stupid atheist argument:

1. You're an atheist about Zeus and Thor!
That is true of almost every theist. It is a very good point, not a bad argument at all. Atheists just believe in one less god than most theists.

EthnAlln

April 10, 2007, 03:34 PM

Hello, IIDB. Here are my top five stupid arguments that atheists use. Enjoy.

5. Prove Invisible Pink Unicorn's don't exist!
4. What caused God?
3. Can god lift ginormous rocks?
2. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is silly, therefore whatever it is making fun of must be just as silly, or even sillier than the initial parody.

And the number one, stupid atheist argument:

1. You're an atheist about Zeus and Thor!

I agree about 2–5. Those arguments are far too abstract to have any effect on the average believer. But as for 1., I think you are wrong. When they can be shown that they dismiss out of hand gods that other people have actually worshipped, they may have a template for understanding how atheists can dismiss their god.

EthnAlln

April 10, 2007, 03:39 PM

From Conkermaniac>

If God loves us, then why does he allow for there to be so much suffering in the world?" Most Christians that I've talked to would respond, "God is testing our faith, as he did Job." Any others?

Actually christians I have met have told me something different.
I can remember 3 occasions when they explained that it is because of our sinful nature.
Because of Adam and Eve's transgression evil had entered our
world causing it to be the way it is now.
Basically we are fallen beings in a fallen world.

Also if all the cruelties and horrors that we are witnessing is a test
of faith then that doesn't make God look so compassionate or merciful.
But rather it makes him look like a callous or brutal being.
If I killed people with disease,war,famine,and crime that is not
testing their faith.
That would be simply just killing them.
So if this is the argument they are using then it would make God
a really detestable and loathesome being indeed.

I am reminded of a scene in a movie entitled "The Razor's Edge".
Starring BIll Murray and others.
In one scene this woman gets in a car accident that kills her
two children.
She ends up surviving and in a hospital.
There is a nun who is looking after her .
She has the bad taste to tell her, that her loss was either the will
of god or part of his incomprehensible plan for all of us.
Her reaction was to slap the nun and chase her out of the room.

I can't say I blamed her one bit.

If you ask any Anglican clergy, like my wife or daughter, or Bishop Tutu, you'll get an entirely different answer: We don't know why there is suffering. It's a mystery beyond human ken. But we do know that, through Christ, God has come down to share our suffering.

At that point, I always want to ask, "And.....?". But they never continue the argument beyond that point. They never explain what good comes of God sharing our suffering or how they know that in fact, he did share it. It's mysticism, pure and simple. But mysticism is irrefutable, since it doesn't offer any proofs.

But, as I said above, one shouldn't debate Anglicans. (They'll soon be extinct anyway, as things are now going for them...)

EthnAlln

April 10, 2007, 03:45 PM

You take it as an assumption? It has been verified by science.

The logical conclusion is not that it has always been there, current theory places it's existence at 15 (+ - 5) billion years ago.

How? It is a law of our universe, therefore, if it was created, it was from outside our universe.

Sorry, Victor Stenger contradicts you. He shows how the universe could come into being as a quantum fluctuation in primordial energy that exists eternally. He's a physicist (I'm not), so you need to take it up with him if you wish to argue the point. I'm content to take it on his authority until I can learn enough physics to understand what the issues are. (I keep trying, but my brain gets weaker and the time I have left keeps getting shorter. ;) )

EthnAlln

April 10, 2007, 03:58 PM

Your "sensory evidence" is inseparable from your emotion. If you try to look at evidence with a so called �objective eye� you are doing nothing more then what your emotions would perceive as being an �objective eye�.

What an equivocation! By your reasoning, my belief that the sky outside is cloudy right now is no better than the belief of a certain colleague of mine that one of his fellow professors intrigued with Richard Feynman to deny him the Nobel Prize in physics.

If you really hold that as a philosophical position, why bother arguing with anyone? In fact, why bother doing anything, since it's all in your head anyway? You have emptied the words why and because of all meaning.

EthnAlln

April 10, 2007, 04:04 PM

You may believe that, but it's based on an emotive interpretation of what you sense.

Can't get away from yourself

I don't believe that, I know that. Much of the "sensory evidence" we obtain is clearly objective and not influenced by emotion.

How am I not "away from myself" when I read a meter or count pennies? Could two people possibly read different results off a digital voltmeter, for example, because of their emotional state? Or come up with different results in counting a pile of pennies because of some emotional influence?

The argument we're getting here is extreme solipsism. Of course it can't be logically refuted. There are infinitely many dogmatic positions that can't be logically refuted, such as the belief that the universe was created five minutes ago, and that I came into being with a body that appears to be 64 years old and has seven gold crowns on its molars.

The trouble is, logically impeccable or not, nobody can believe it, and it leads nowhere. Nobody in fact does believe it. I'd be willing to bet that everyone who defends solipsism nevertheless fills out income tax declarations as if the IRS were a real institution with real enforcement powers. If they cheat, they take reasonable care not to get caught doing it. And when they fly, they buy airplane tickets instead of getting out a broomstick, just like the rest of us deluded people who imagine there really is a world out there that we can know things about.

espritch

April 10, 2007, 04:16 PM

Sorry, Victor Stenger contradicts you. He shows how the universe could come into being as a quantum fluctuation in primordial energy that exists eternally. He's a physicist (I'm not), so you need to take it up with him if you wish to argue the point. I'm content to take it on his authority until I can learn enough physics to understand what the issues are. (I keep trying, but my brain gets weaker and the time I have left keeps getting shorter. ;) )

Returning to the OP, I don't think it is a good idea to drag out theories about the origin of the Big Bang (like Brane theory or Stenger's theory) in arguments with theists. The first problem is that you probably don't understand the theory yourself (unless you are a cosmologist or a nuclear physicist - I am certainly neither). The second is that most such theories are really hypothesis; they haven't actually been proven to the degree that they should be called theories.

For myself, I prefer to leave cosmological theorizing to the theorists and admit that I don't know what caused the Big Bang. Of course saying "God did it" doesn't really answer the question either. The existence of the universe neither proves nor disproves the existence of a God.

Another argument that should probably be avoided is the "Science disproves God". The problem is that science can't really disprove the existence of an entity lacking any testable quality. Science has certainly disproved any literal reading of Genesis, but theists can alway define God more loosely.

I prefer the skeptic approach. God is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want me to believe in God, you need to provide extraordinary evidence of his/her/its existence. So far I've seen no evidence at all, much less extraordinary evidence.

EthnAlln

April 10, 2007, 04:17 PM

Actually, there it isn't. The net energy of the universe is zero.

Dave

You're a little above me on this one. When one is counting potential energy (energy of position in mechanics or volts per meter in electromagnetic theory), the energy is obtained by integration and therefore is known only up to an arbitrary additive constant. But I imagine there is some canonical way of choosing that constant in quantum physics, which I have never understood, so that the total energy must be zero. (Mathematically, there certainly is such a value and one can use it without changing any differential equations. But the same would be true of any other value of the constant. Would it be more precise to say that the net energy of the universe is constant? Or are their physical considerations that dictate a particular value for the constant?)

EthnAlln

April 10, 2007, 04:20 PM

Returning to the OP, I don't think it is a good idea to drag out theories about the origin of the Big Bang (like Brane theory or Stenger's theory) in arguments with theists. The first problem is that you probably don't understand the theory yourself (unless you are a cosmologist or a nuclear physicist - I am certainly neither). The second is that most such theories are really hypothesis; they haven't actually been proven to the degree that they should be called theories.

For myself, I prefer to leave cosmological theorizing to the theorists and admit that I don't know what caused the Big Bang. Of course saying "God did it" doesn't really answer the question either. The existence of the universe neither proves nor disproves the existence of a God.

Another argument that should probably be avoided is the "Science disproves God". The problem is that science can't really disprove the existence of an entity lacking any testable quality. Science has certainly disproved any literal reading of Genesis, but theists can alway define God more loosely.

I prefer the skeptic approach. God is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want me to believe in God, you need to provide extraordinary evidence of his/her/its existence. So far I've seen no evidence at all, much less extraordinary evidence.

I absolutely agree. The only reason I posted on this topic at all was to respond to a claim from the "other side." I'd never claim that science disproves anything. All talk of origins is simply blown away by the fundamentalist belief that if there were no eyewitnesses, then we don't know that it's real. (Despite the fact that we DO know what goes on inside of stars, even though there are no eyewitnesses on the spot.)

windsofchange

April 10, 2007, 04:21 PM

Hello, IIDB. Here are my top five stupid arguments that atheists use. Enjoy.

5. Prove Invisible Pink Unicorn's don't exist!
4. What caused God?
3. Can god lift ginormous rocks?
2. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is silly, therefore whatever it is making fun of must be just as silly, or even sillier than the initial parody.

And the number one, stupid atheist argument:

1. You're an atheist about Zeus and Thor!

Hi, Falconus, and welcome to the board. If you see a very old thread like this one, lying peacefully asleep, and it seems worth reviving to you, may I suggest you open a new thread rather than responding to one that's been enjoying its afterlife for so long? Thanks!

EthnAlln

April 10, 2007, 04:27 PM

Wow, 3 pages and this is the best of the worst? C'mon, people. Maybe since I frequent Yahoo chat, which has far more in the way of really BAD debate on both sides, I have lots of examples:

The Bible has been translated so many times that we have NO idea what the original writers said.
Christianity is responsible for more deaths throughout history than any other organization or cause.
Constantine decided the books of the New Testament at the Council of Nicea, and burned everthing else, so we have no idea what the "other gospels" might have said.
There is absolutely zero evidence that Jesus existed, therefore Christianity is false.
Jesus is just one of a dozen (or twenty, or whatever) "sons of god" who was killed and resurrected.
Christianity is a retelling of Mithraism, and nothing more.
There were a dozen or more prophets in the first century who claimed to be the Jewish Messiah.
Jesus survived the crucifixion, moved to France with Mary Magdalene, and fathered a dynasty of kings.

I suspect that's the sort of thing that the OP was looking for, hmm?

-Kelly

Nice ones! Actually, atheists have to be on the defensive on the problem of evil, given that atheism was one aspect of Communism, and that the thugs who ran the Soviet Union did some terrible things to people of faith. I don't mention the Inquisition or the hanging of Quakers on Boston Common by our Puritan ancestors or the massacres of the descendants of the pre-Columbian inhabitants of North America unless Communism is thrown up to me. Tu quoque does work sometimes.

And all those fanciful "alternative interpretations" of Christianity, like the "Passover Plot" or "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" or the DaVinci Code are utterly useless. Unless someone already believed in them (and such a person would have to be extremely naive), they wouldn't convince anybody. Leave the Golden Bough to those who wish to read it. (I don't.) It should not be confused with archaeological evidence, and (as I posted above) even archaeological evidence doesn't help. The fundies have their own archaeologists, whom they pay to conclude that the Bible is absolutely correct in its history.

Falconus

April 10, 2007, 04:34 PM

That is true of almost every theist. It is a very good point, not a bad argument at all. Atheists just believe in one less god than most theists.

It's a really bad argument for two reasons. One the one hand, logically it fails because it a slippery slope fallacy. Two is not the same as one, three is not the same as two, etc.

On the other hand, which would be it's usefulness in debate, it is also quite useless because a Christian does not view them as even remotely similiar, and can even view other gods as enemies; demons posing as gods. Additionally, many of these "deities" are merely individual members in a pantheon, making it even less relevant that nobody believes in them.

Look at it this way... from our standpoints, you might as well be saying "Neither of us believes Atlantis is a real place, therefore my unacceptance of the existence of Antarctica means I believe in just one less landmass than you. You may argue that it is a bad comparison because the idea that Antarctica doesn't exist is absurd to you. However, your lack of belief in God may appear just as absurd to some, and some people do reject the existence of Antarctica.

Falconus

April 10, 2007, 04:41 PM

Hi, Falconus, and welcome to the board. If you see a very old thread like this one, lying peacefully asleep, and it seems worth reviving to you, may I suggest you open a new thread rather than responding to one that's been enjoying its afterlife for so long? Thanks!

I'll keep that in mind. I just came upon this thread during a google search.

Y.B

April 10, 2007, 04:54 PM

It's a really bad argument for two reasons. One the one hand, logically it fails because it a slippery slope fallacy. Two is not the same as one, three is not the same as two, etc.

I don't think you know what a slippery slope fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html) is.

On the other hand, which would be it's usefulness in debate, it is also quite useless because a Christian does not view them as even remotely similiar, and can even view other gods as enemies; demons posing as gods. Additionally, many of these "deities" are merely individual members in a pantheon, making it even less relevant that nobody believes in them.

Of course a person who believes in god(s) views his or her god(s) as the only real one(s). So what else is new? There are thousands of gods dreamt up by human minds, and there is no more evidence for the Christian god than any other. You are missing the point.

Look at it this way... from our standpoints, you might as well be saying "Neither of us believes Atlantis is a real place, therefore my unacceptance of the existence of Antarctica means I believe in just one less landmass than you. You may argue that it is a bad comparison because the idea that Antarctica doesn't exist is absurd to you. However, your lack of belief in God may appear just as absurd to some, and some people do reject the existence of Antarctica.

That doesn't even make sense. Antarctica is verifiably real, whereas Atlantis is not.

abaddon

April 10, 2007, 05:12 PM

Maybe it's already mentioned... I have not read all 4 pages of the discussion.

But I think insisting on a literal Bible and its inconsistencies is a pretty lame argument when applied to Christianity as a whole. Of course if your particular opponent in a debate is a literalist insisting the Bible is one whole coherent statement, then no problem. But not all Christians believe that, nor are they obligated by anything within Christianity to believe that.

It just gets worse when the anti-Christian attempts to salvage a Straw-Man argument, using a No True Scotsman argument to do it. I see this too often; the notion is, in essence, "If you don't fit my caricatures of Christians, then you're not a real Christian." It would really be better if they just didn't make caricatures in the first place, instead of drawing out an argument for no better reason than just to salvage them and insist on their Rightness.

Falconus

April 10, 2007, 05:13 PM

You are missing the point.

I submit that it is you who is missing the point.

That doesn't even make sense. Antarctica is verifiably real, whereas Atlantis is not.

I guess you've never argued with a flat-earther. The response to that would go something like this.

"Verifiable? How? Have you ever SEEN it? NO. You rely only on doctored photographs from outer space and hearsay."

To them, you are a conformist fool for believing in Antarctica.

I don't think you know what a slippery slope fallacy is.

You think wrong. It doesn't matter how many more or less "gods" you believe in. Submitting that if you don't believe in [x amount] of "gods", then it is just the most logical thing to equate them all and treat each "deity" same as the last. Therefore, it is a slippery slope. "Having one God is the same as having twenty gods".

Imagine that you have 300 poles sticking out of the ground. 299 made out of pine, the last made with steel and anchored by cement. It is a slippery slope to say there is no difference from first to last, and you will take them all out with a serated knife.

I am backed up by this definition from nizkor.org:

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed.

...

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Y.B

April 10, 2007, 05:24 PM

I submit that it is you who is missing the point.

Right. Let's see about that.

I guess you've never argued with a flat-earther. The response to that would go something like this.

"Verifiable? How? Have you ever SEEN it? NO. You rely only on doctored photographs from outer space and hearsay."

To them, you are a conformist fool for believing in Antarctica.

I've argued with creationists, and it's similar to arguing with flat-Earthers. I'm talking about that which is verifiable by the scientific method, whether it's Antarctica or common descent.

You think wrong. It doesn't matter how many more or less "gods" you believe in. Submitting that if you don't believe in [x amount] of "gods", then it is just the most logical thing to equate them all and treat each "deity" same as the last.

Yes, all deities are only known to exist in the imagination of humans.

Therefore, it is a slippery slope. "Having one God is the same as having twenty gods".

Until evidence of any god is provided they are all in the same category.

Imagine that you have 300 poles sticking out of the ground. 299 made out of pine, the last made with steel and anchored by cement. It is a slippery slope to say there is no difference from first to last, and you will take them all out with a serated knife.

Bad analogy.

I am backed up by this definition from nizkor.org:

Hardly, the operational word in the definition being events which has nothing to do about the debate over the existence of god(s).

Falconus

April 10, 2007, 06:00 PM

Right. Let's see about that.

Kay.

I've argued with creationists, and it's similar to arguing with flat-Earthers.

No it's not. In terms of burden of proof, it's more similiar to arguing with atheists. They LACK a belief in the Earth's roundness and the existence of some landmasses. Note that I am only speaking in terms of structure, and not degree or absurdity.

Yes, all deities are only known to exist in the imagination of humans.

That assertion is irrelevant. I could challenge it, but it looks like a Red Herring to me. Even assuming that is the only evidence (which I will do, because I don't feel like putting forth so much effort), you assume that all evidence in this category is the same, not of differing qualities and veracity.

Hardly, the operational word in the definition being events which has nothing to do about the debate over the existence of god(s).

Existing is a protracted event. Obviously the slippery slope fallacy can apply not only to a specific moment in time, but an undefined state of being.

Y.B

April 10, 2007, 06:06 PM

No it's not. In terms of burden of proof, it's more similiar to arguing with atheists. They LACK a belief in the Earth's roundness and the existence of some landmasses.

So you're arguing that the existence of god(s) is as verifiable as the existence of Antarctica and the fact that the Earth is a geoid? Good luck with that.

Falconus

April 10, 2007, 06:20 PM

The sentence right after that one clarifies. So no, I'm not arguing that.

Doug Shaver

April 11, 2007, 09:52 PM

What, in your opinion, are arguments that atheists should never use in a debate with a Christian or any other theist?
The Bible is not inerrant; therefore, God does not exist.

Pragmatista

April 11, 2007, 09:57 PM

"All religious people are stupid."

"A religious person cannot be a scientist."

naturalist.atheist

April 11, 2007, 10:07 PM

I don't know if this has been mentioned but IMO I think using Ockham's Razor has got to be one of the worse atheist arguments.

Y.B

April 12, 2007, 05:05 AM

I don't know if this has been mentioned but IMO I think using Ockham's Razor has got to be one of the worse atheist arguments.

Why? I think it's one of the best atheist arguments.

Jack the Bodiless

April 12, 2007, 05:06 AM

The Bible is not inerrant; therefore, God does not exist.
It works if you're careful about which God you're talking about.

The Bible is not inerrant; therefore, the strictly Biblical God does not exist.

The Bible is not inerrant; therefore, YOUR God does not exist (when addressing an inerrantist).

A bad argument I'd like to nominate: "Bats are not birds" (referring to Leviticus 11). The usual apologetic is that we shouldn't assume that the ancient Hebrews must use the same taxonomic classifications as we do: maybe their "bird" is what we'd call a "winged vertebrate". Unlike most apologetic attempts to redefine inconvenient words, this one seems plausible: there is no good counter. There's a better example to use in the same chapter: the references to "four-legged fowl" (either four-legged birds or four-legged insects). With regard to locusts and suchlike, the description implies that the long jumping legs aren't counted: but what are all the other four-legged fowl mentioned?

Johnny Skeptic

April 12, 2007, 06:24 AM

What, in your opinion, are arguments that atheists should never use in a debate with a Christian or any other theist? The biggest no-no in a debate with a Christian would be to ask, "If God loves us, then why does he allow for there to be so much suffering in the world?" Most Christians that I've talked to would respond, "God is testing our faith, as he did Job." Any others?

If it is valid for God to test humans, why isn't it just as valid for humans to test God? If God knows everything, he wouldn't need to test humans. Since humans don't know everything, they need to test God. Why would a moral, honest God mind being tested? If I wanted people to worship me, I would not mind being tested. If fact, I would encourage it. Doubt is not a good thing.

naturalist.atheist

April 12, 2007, 08:46 AM

Why? I think it's one of the best atheist arguments.

Well Ockham was a theist and seemed to think that it didn't apply to god. But even that aside there doesn't appear to be any consensus even among those that advocate Ockham's Razor as to what it actually is. And the supposedly most ancient version attributed to William of Ockham he never actually can be found to have written. And lastly there is no empirical evidence of any kind that the simplest explanation has to be the "right" one. It can be just as wrong as the most complicated one.

Lastly, because I do not judge an explanation on how simple it is. I judge it on how well it accounts for what is known and how well it predicts reality before the fact, and since god as a concept predicts that anything and everything can happen it basically predicts nothing and thus as an explanation is very poor. There are certainly much better scientific explanations as flawed as they may be.

If you invoke god as an explanation it is essentially an explanation of ignorance, and if history has shown anything, explanations of ignorance are most likely to be wrong. This is not a principle that I know of, just my personal observation.

EthnAlln

April 12, 2007, 09:32 AM

I guess you've never argued with a flat-earther. The response to that would go something like this.

"Verifiable? How? Have you ever SEEN it? NO. You rely only on doctored photographs from outer space and hearsay."

To them, you are a conformist fool for believing in Antarctica.

Well, of course you can't argue with someone who is certifiably insane. Why would you even try? I assumed this thread was about arguing with people who at least understand the physical world and ordinary common sense.

You think wrong. It doesn't matter how many more or less "gods" you believe in. Submitting that if you don't believe in [x amount] of "gods", then it is just the most logical thing to equate them all and treat each "deity" same as the last. Therefore, it is a slippery slope. "Having one God is the same as having twenty gods".

Imagine that you have 300 poles sticking out of the ground. 299 made out of pine, the last made with steel and anchored by cement. It is a slippery slope to say there is no difference from first to last, and you will take them all out with a serated knife.

I am backed up by this definition from nizkor.org:

The object isn't to convince people starting from an assumption that all religions are equal. That point was refuted long ago, in one of the few good arguments GK Chesterton ever made, namely that the scheme of human societies isn't like a page ruled into parallel columns, one of which is labeled "religion." But it is very effective nevertheless to point out that other people have worshipped other gods with the same feeling of sincerity that the typical Christian now has. And, more important still, the tangible evidence for other gods is exactly the same as the tangible evidence for the Christian god. That will of course open the controversy, because the Christian will deny it. But some good points can then be made, as the tendentiously selected "evidence" for Christianity can be refuted.

About your "poles" analogy...You made this into a sucker bet by putting the poles in the ground yourself. If you truly want an analogy, suppose you are not the man keeping the card table, but just one of the players. You come upon 300 poles in the ground. You examine the first 150 and find that they are all made of pine. How much would a rational gambler be willing to bet that the last one is steel anchored in concrete?

wordy

April 12, 2007, 12:16 PM

One of the worst I encountered is something like this.

"Why do you as a christian believe that somebody who died 2000 years ago could save you now?"

I mean it fails miserably cause the jesus they believe in is the alive now. In their head and hearts, I mean even as atheists we should get how social constructions allow such functional experiences. To them it is the truth so to ask such rhetorical questions only show how bad we are at getting how their constructs work for them. They live within that delusion. They don't look at it from outside like we do.

Pavlov's Dog

April 12, 2007, 12:23 PM

Never use, "Oh yeah! Well Stalin was an atheist!"

Doug Shaver

April 13, 2007, 01:27 PM

It works if you're careful about which God you're talking about.
It is not a valid argument no matter which god is being discussed. Unless, of course, you decide to define God specifically to make the argument valid.

The Bible is not inerrant; therefore, the strictly Biblical God does not exist.
I don't see a contradiction between the existence of Yahweh and the presence of errors in a book whose authors thought they were writing about Yahweh.

The Bible is not inerrant; therefore, YOUR God does not exist (when addressing an inerrantist).
An inerrantist is affirming the conjunction of three statements: (A) God exists; (B) God inspired this book; (C) this book is without error. If you disprove C, you disprove the conjunction, but not any of the other conjuncts.

A bad argument I'd like to nominate: "Bats are not birds" (referring to Leviticus 11).
That could be a premise of an argument, but it is not an argument. It is just a statement.

steamer

April 13, 2007, 03:48 PM

This argument should never be used by any atheists ever.

"Hey Christian, catch this rattlesnake"

This is one of those annoying little bits of reality that tends to wrap believers on the knuckles. Yes the bible says they won't be hurt, but they will probably be killed and the Christian judge will blame you for murder and not the book that got it wrong.

ComestibleVenom

April 13, 2007, 03:59 PM

What, in your opinion, are arguments that atheists should never use in a debate with a Christian or any other theist? The biggest no-no in a debate with a Christian would be to ask, "If God loves us, then why does he allow for there to be so much suffering in the world?" Most Christians that I've talked to would respond, "God is testing our faith, as he did Job." Any others?

Don't be a disrespectful jerk. (Ahem, not that I would impute such an attitude to you. I'm just being cautionary.)

Try to find what an individual understands through their faith, and work with it, not against it. I have seen very little success though means of constantly telling somebody they're wrong.

I think this feeds into what Yggdrasill was saying about the paradox arguments. Engage the logic of belief, not it's apparent madness. That will only lead all participants in a convoluted circle. A moebius strip of confusion, if you will.

ComestibleVenom

April 13, 2007, 04:53 PM

Indeed. I am reminded of a quote from Edward Abbey:
When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated,
and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove
as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense.

Or the philosopher is tedious and complicated and his listener is opaque.

FatherMithras

April 14, 2007, 07:57 PM

Never use, "Oh yeah! Well Stalin was an atheist!"

Pavlov's Dog, you rule.

Yggdrasill

April 14, 2007, 09:19 PM

Well Ockham was a theist and seemed to think that it didn't apply to god. But even that aside there doesn't appear to be any consensus even among those that advocate Ockham's Razor as to what it actually is. And the supposedly most ancient version attributed to William of Ockham he never actually can be found to have written.Who Ockham was or what he thought doesn't matter, he merely gave his name to the logical concept of only being logically justified in claiming the least complex solution that is compatible with the evidence. The exact wording doesn't affect the validity, though it is best to try to include your wording whenever you use Occam's razor.
And lastly there is no empirical evidence of any kind that the simplest explanation has to be the "right" one. It can be just as wrong as the most complicated one.It can be wrong, sure, but you aren't logically justified in claiming the more complex solution. That's all Occam's razor entails.

If the less complex solution is wrong, one has to obtain evidence with which the less complex solution isn't compatible before one is logically justified in claiming something else.

naturalist.atheist

April 14, 2007, 09:38 PM

Who Ockham was or what he thought doesn't matter, he merely gave his name to the logical concept of only being logically justified in claiming the least complex solution that is compatible with the evidence. The exact wording doesn't affect the validity, though it is best to try to include your wording whenever you use Occam's razor.

Since when does the form of something not matter? Especially in a supposedly "logical" argument. Can logical rules be applied in a sloppy and careless manner and one should expect the result to be valid?

It can be wrong, sure, but you aren't logically justified in claiming the more complex solution. That's all Occam's razor entails.

Agreed. You are not justified in claiming the more complicated solution, the least complicated solution, the middle complicated solution, the simplest + 1, the most complicated -1, and so on and so forth. Because simplicity has never made anything automatically right or wrong. It is a perceived property of an explanation that has no bearing on its validity. Because simplicity is very much in the eye of the beholder. People who like god think it is a very simple explanation. Certainly much simpler than evolution, the big bang, plate tectonics, Maxwell's equations and so on and so forth. And people who like those other explanations such as scientists do so because so far they appear to be the best explanations to date. Far better than any god explanations.

If the less complex solution is wrong, one has to obtain evidence with which the less complex solution isn't compatible before one is logically justified in claiming something else.

That goes for claiming anything is wrong, simple or complicated.

Mumbles

April 14, 2007, 11:01 PM

What, in your opinion, are arguments that atheists should never use in a debate with a Christian or any other theist? The biggest no-no in a debate with a Christian would be to ask, "If God loves us, then why does he allow for there to be so much suffering in the world?" Most Christians that I've talked to would respond, "God is testing our faith, as he did Job." Any others?

"Jesus didn't really exist".

It's putting the cart before the horse. Yes, christians have to give evidence that God exists before the claim that Jesus is God is reasonable, but conversely, a god may exist regardless of whether or not Jesus did. Yes, Jesus not existing is damaging to christians in particular, but it's of no real consequence to theism in general.

naturalist.atheist

April 15, 2007, 12:07 AM

"Jesus didn't really exist".

It's putting the cart before the horse. Yes, christians have to give evidence that God exists before the claim that Jesus is God is reasonable, but conversely, a god may exist regardless of whether or not Jesus did. Yes, Jesus not existing is damaging to christians in particular, but it's of no real consequence to theism in general.

That is a good point. However the default position of atheism is to lack a belief in god. And such people may also lack a belief in the tooth fairy, Santa, and on and on. But there is a difference between lacking a belief and making the statement, 'there is no god', or 'there is no tooth fairy', or 'there is no Santa' and so forth. However most people are able to use as a working hypothesis that 'there is no tooth fairy' even though they can't actually demonstrate it. And so it is with god if the case for god is not much better than that for the tooth fairy.

And certainly fairness would dictate that if the evidence for god was no better than that of the tooth fairy and one held a belief in god, then in all fairness one should hold just as a sincere belief in the tooth fairy as god. Otherwise one would be practicing a double standard.

However some people see no problems with double standards.

Joan of Bark

April 15, 2007, 05:04 AM

The biggest no-no in a debate with a Christian would be to ask, "If God loves us, then why does he allow for there to be so much suffering in the world?" Most Christians that I've talked to would respond, "God is testing our faith, as he did Job." Any others?

(I haven't read this entire thread, so I may be repeating someone here.)

This is actually the BEST possible argument, because it gets right to the heart of the matter. "God is testing our faith ... "? So God tortures a baby with malaria to test the baby's faith? Or what if you are an adult but have no faith to begin with?

Besides which, a loving being does not torture those with less power and then claim to "love" them. If that were true, we could apply the same logic to every asshole in history, from the Assyrians to Hitler and Stalin.

Yggdrasill

April 15, 2007, 06:34 AM

Since when does the form of something not matter? Especially in a supposedly "logical" argument. Can logical rules be applied in a sloppy and careless manner and one should expect the result to be valid?Occam's razor is closer to a sentement than a solid rule really. You shouldn't claim more than you are justified in claiming, and as long as the wording expresses that, it is largely valid.

You shouldn't word it "sloppily", but there are many correct ways to word it, and which one you use is mostly a matter of preference.
Agreed. You are not justified in claiming the more complicated solution, the least complicated solution, the middle complicated solution, the simplest + 1, the most complicated -1, and so on and so forth. Because simplicity has never made anything automatically right or wrong.Logically, you are only justified in claiming the least complex solution that matches the evidence.It is a perceived property of an explanation that has no bearing on its validity. Because simplicity is very much in the eye of the beholder. People who like god think it is a very simple explanation. Certainly much simpler than evolution, the big bang, plate tectonics, Maxwell's equations and so on and so forth. And people who like those other explanations such as scientists do so because so far they appear to be the best explanations to date. Far better than any god explanations.The problem with god as a simple solution is that there are many unknowns. Which god? How did god come into existence? Why does god do anything? Where is god? Etc. And every "answer" leads to another endless supply of questions.

With science, a lot of the basic questions are answered.
That goes for claiming anything is wrong, simple or complicated.Well, yes, but the simple solution is the starting point. By starting with a simple model, and then consecutively disproving increasingly complex solutions, you are able to get to an accurate model.

If you were to start with a complex model, if you then disprove it, you're back at square one.

naturalist.atheist

April 15, 2007, 10:58 AM

Occam's razor is closer to a sentement than a solid rule really. You shouldn't claim more than you are justified in claiming, and as long as the wording expresses that, it is largely valid.

Fine then. Why would anyone think that a sentiment was a good argument?

My point was after all that Ockham's razor was a bad argument for atheism. I mean if an atheist is going to claim that a religious sentiment is not sufficient reason for belief in god then why would another kind of sentiment philosophical or otherwise be a good reason to not believe in god?

You shouldn't word it "sloppily", but there are many correct ways to word it, and which one you use is mostly a matter of preference.

And pray tell, why are they correct? Because of sentiment?

Logically, you are only justified in claiming the least complex solution that matches the evidence.The problem with god as a simple solution is that there are many unknowns. Which god? How did god come into existence? Why does god do anything? Where is god? Etc. And every "answer" leads to another endless supply of questions.

Those are good questions but what do they have to do with Ockham's razor. Which version of it are you talking about now that appeals to the sentiment are you referring to?

With science, a lot of the basic questions are answered.
Well, yes, but the simple solution is the starting point. By starting with a simple model, and then consecutively disproving increasingly complex solutions, you are able to get to an accurate model.

Really? From where I sit it is the basic questions that seem to always be looking for answers. After all we are not talking about religion but science. If the basic questions were answered why would there be more scientists in existence now then for all previous time combined? Why is so much money being spent to find answers to scientific questions? Why all the hubbub about string theory? Doesn't sound like the sort of thing one would expect to see if "a lot of the basic questions are answered".

If you were to start with a complex model, if you then disprove it, you're back at square one.

Perhaps, but in science the more convincing argument is to prefer the explanation that does the best job of predicting reality before the fact. And I have no idea why anyone would think that a god explanation and a scientific explanation predict the same things. Not hardly at all. And it is not as if there is only one kind of god explanation. Even among god explanations they do not predict the same things. So it don’t understand the particular version of Ockham's razor your sentiment appears to leans towards. Because if it is a sentiment I assure your that god advocates have a sentiment that god is the simplest answer.

I have no idea why you would think that Ockham's razor would be all that convincing to them.

ComestibleVenom

April 15, 2007, 02:19 PM

naturalist.atheist

April 15, 2007, 07:24 PM

Ockham's Razor is a principle of how proximate the isomorphism. In my mind, it is kind of like the measure that distinguishes a metaphor from a statement of fact. Although they are fundamentally similar, one is more direct in translation.

I must say, that is a new one. It may be the case but I am darned if I can figure out how you got there from all the various versions of Ockham's razor I am aware of.

So exactly how does Ockham's Razor distinguish a metaphor from a statement of fact?

And you are aware that human statements are metaphors in themselves. So I am dumbfounded ( or perhaps just dumb ) as to how Ockham's razor can make such a distinction.

A picture of a pipe is not a pipe ("Ceçi n'est pas une pipe" - Magritte), and the word pipe is not a pipe either. But we all know a pipe when we see one.

ComestibleVenom

April 15, 2007, 10:23 PM

A picture of a pipe is not a pipe ("Ceçi n'est pas une pipe" - Magritte), and the word pipe is not a pipe either. But we all know a pipe when we see one.

Simplicity = the directness and efficiency of translation between an internal model and the structure we are describing.

lpetrich

April 15, 2007, 10:55 PM

My favorite bad argument is this argument from Friedrich Nietzsche:

If there are Gods, how could I bear it to be no God! Therefore, there are no Gods.

More seriously, I don't like it when atheists seem to think that all varieties of religion are like those that they are familiar with, including such things as:

* Monotheism
* Exclusivism
* Gods as necessarily good
* The afterlife as a consolation

Although monotheism and exclusivism -- belief in a One True Religion with a One True God -- is an important part of the Abrahamic religions, it is rare outside of them. The only two non-Abrahamic examples I can think of are Zoroastrianism and Pharaoh Akhnaton's Atenism.

Most other religions are polytheist and non-exclusivist. And as far as I know, all of humanity's older religions, and all the religions of "primitive" people, are polytheist, featuring a multitude of gods and spirits of both sexes.

And instead of being exclusivist, they have often been syncretist, claiming that various deities are aspects or versions of various other ones. Herodotus in his History did it in a major way, describing other people's gods as versions of the Olympians, and many of his fellow Greeks followed suit after Alexander the Great's conquests. And when Rome conquered the Mediterranean Basin and nearby lands, the Romans identified their gods with the gods of the people they had conquered, Greek gods and Egyptian gods and Celtic gods and so forth.

And Hindus have reconciled their abundance of gods by supposing some of them to be aspects or manifestations or avatars of other gods. Thus, Krishna has been one of several avatars of Vishnu, and some Hindus have considered Jesus Christ and the Buddha to be additional avatars of Vishnu. However, Xians have been unwilling to do anything close to returning this favor. And Hindu monotheists consider the multitude of Hindu deities to be aspects of one single super god.

It must be said that the cult of saints has been a form of backdoor polytheism; the Virgin Mary is rather clearly a mother-goddess figure.

As to gods not necessarily being good, that's what Hellenic pagans had believed; for them, the important thing was that their gods are powerful. It must be conceded that this solves the Problem of Evil very nicely.

And as to the afterlife as a consolation, that's not exactly been universal. Various religions have featured a very colorless and shadowy sort of afterlife; consider the Greek Hades and the Old Testament Sheol. Also, some Hindus and Buddhists believe that being reincarnated is something that they ultimately hope to escape. And fear of eternal damnation is not exactly very consoling either. The Epicureans, with their rejection of an afterlife, considered their belief a liberation from needless fears of being tormented in the next world.

I'm not sure I appreciate swipes at "Bronze Age goat herders" (they were early Iron Age, actually), and I don't know how appropriate it would be to burlesque the Xian God as anthropomorphic. The more sophisticated Xians claim that God is not really anthropomorphic, but they go against their book with its abundant anthropomorphisms -- which they interpret away by various means.

I'd like to see more mention of Xenophanes's swipes against the religions he knew about, like how people believe in gods that look like them and even wear their sort of clothes.

And I'd like to see more addressing of allegorical and other nonliteral interpretation -- why is it necessary to go through all this song and dance to interpret what is supposedly a perfect book? Why can't it be written in a simple and straightforward way?

naturalist.atheist

April 15, 2007, 11:07 PM

Simplicity = the directness and efficiency of translation between an internal model and the structure we are describing.

I suppose if you are willing to redefine the word 'simple' you can make Ockham's Razor mean just about anything.

But if you can redefine the word 'simple' to mean what you want why can't a theist redifine it to mean what they want?

This is what webster's has to say about 'simple'.

Main Entry: 1sim·ple
Pronunciation: 'sim-p&l
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): sim·pler /-p(&-)l&r/; sim·plest /-p(&-)l&st/
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin simplus, alteration of Latin simplic-, simplex single, having one ingredient, plain, from sem-, sim- one + -plic-, -plex -fold -- more at SAME, -FOLD
1 : free from guile : INNOCENT
2 a : free from vanity : MODEST b : free from ostentation or display <a simple outfit>
3 : of humble origin or modest position <a simple farmer>
4 a : lacking in knowledge or expertise <a simple amateur of the arts> b (1) : STUPID (2) : mentally retarded c : not socially or culturally sophisticated : NAIVE; also : CREDULOUS
5 a : SHEER, UNMIXED <simple honesty> b : free of secondary complications <a simple vitamin deficiency> c (1) : having only one main clause and no subordinate clauses <a simple sentence> (2) of a subject or predicate : having no modifiers, complements, or objects d : constituting a basic element : FUNDAMENTAL e : not made up of many like units <a simple eye>
6 : free from elaboration or figuration <simple harmony>
7 a (1) : not subdivided into branches or leaflets <a simple stem> <a simple leaf> (2) : consisting of a single carpel (3) : developing from a single ovary <a simple fruit> b : controlled by a single gene <simple inherited characters>
8 : not limited or restricted : UNCONDITIONAL <a simple obligation>
9 : readily understood or performed <simple directions> <the adjustment was simple to make>
10 of a statistical hypothesis : specifying exact values for one or more statistical parameters -- compare COMPOSITE 3
- sim·ple·ness /-p&l-n&s/ noun
synonyms SIMPLE, FOOLISH, SILLY, FATUOUS, ASININE mean actually or apparently deficient in intelligence. SIMPLE implies a degree of intelligence inadequate to cope with anything complex or involving mental effort <considered people simple who had trouble with computers>. FOOLISH implies the character of being or seeming unable to use judgment, discretion, or good sense <foolish stunts>. SILLY suggests failure to act as a rational being especially by ridiculous behavior <the silly antics of revelers>. FATUOUS implies foolishness, inanity, and disregard of reality <fatuous conspiracy theories>. ASININE suggests utter and contemptible failure to use normal rationality or perception <an asinine plot>. synonym see in addition EASY

I suppose the synonyms could apply as well. Simple as in FOOLISH, SILLY, FATUOUS and ASININE.

ComestibleVenom

April 16, 2007, 11:05 AM

I suppose if you are willing to redefine the word 'simple' you can make Ockham's Razor mean just about anything.

But if you can redefine the word 'simple' to mean what you want why can't a theist redefine it to mean what they want?

It is utterly essential to the definition of God that it can be continually redefined.

I suppose the synonyms could apply as well. Simple as in FOOLISH, SILLY, FATUOUS and ASININE.

That's just semantic games. There are many functional definitions for simplicity that make Ockham's Razor a very useful heuristic: both aesthetically and epistemically.

Simple as computationally efficient. Simple as not multiplying agents.

And here's another related concept: The fact that the limiting parameter of knowledge is not so much the structure of the universe but accessibility to the human mind.