# Most annoying atheist arguments **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 16, 2014, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497 "2014-02-16T22:34:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/101 "2014-02-17T06:09:11Z")
There’s several faulty arguments in the topic list, but my biggest complaint is about the FSM or IPU. That argument is perfect for illustrating the fact that there is no objective evidence for deities. The problem is when people implement the argument, often times they completely ignore the fact that a lot of spirituality is based on subjective personal experience and/or evidence. If someone believes they have seen enough in this life to conclude that their must be a divine source behind it all, then comparing that belief to a Flying Spaghetti Monster is very inadequate. More times than not, the argument is more inflammatory to a discussion than productive, because it tends to strike a nerve in theists. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/102 "2014-02-17T06:14:24Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > There’s several faulty arguments in the topic list, but my biggest complaint is about the FSM or IPU. That argument is perfect for illustrating the fact that there is no objective evidence for deities. The problem is when people implement the argument, often times they completely ignore the fact that a lot of spirituality is based on subjective personal experience and/or evidence. > > If someone believes they have seen enough in this life to conclude that their must be a divine source behind it all, then comparing that belief to a Flying Spaghetti Monster is very inadequate. More times than not, the argument is more inflammatory to a discussion than productive, because it tends to strike a nerve in theists. and indeed it should! to think that they should offer subjective “proof” because they really really really FEEL like they are correct is what’s insulting! ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/103 "2014-02-17T06:28:32Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > god inspired is shifty logic. it just means they want to have license to validate the parts they like and disregard the other. i dont know why you would mention this as if it actually explained anything. Well, because it does explain it. There are certain aspects of the Bible that are antiquated and obviously a product of the time period in which they were written. A reasonable person can see that. It’s pretty easy to think that “Thou shalt not kill” would be a good thing to believe, and the story of Jonah and the whale is just a parable. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/104 "2014-02-17T06:34:15Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Well, because it does explain it. There are certain aspects of the Bible that are antiquated and obviously a product of the time period in which they were written. A reasonable person can see that. It’s pretty easy to think that “Thou shalt not kill” would be a good thing to believe, and the story of Jonah and the whale is just a parable. bollocks. you cant say jonah and the whale is false but the resurrection is true. conversely if you say the resurrection is false but do good to others is true, well there is no need at all for the bible. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/105 "2014-02-17T06:35:53Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > and indeed it should! to think that they should offer subjective “proof” because they really really really FEEL like they are correct is what’s insulting! Of course that’s insulting, but that’s more of a point you should make in the thread about annoying arguments that theists make. I’m talking about theists having enough “proof” or evidence to convince themselves, not other people. Obviously subjective evidence, or evidence that can’t be scientifically verified, is worthless to an outside party. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/106 "2014-02-17T06:39:40Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Of course that’s insulting, but that’s more of a point you should make in the thread about annoying arguments that theists make. > > I’m talking about theists having enough “proof” or evidence to convince themselves, not other people. Obviously subjective evidence, or evidence that can’t be scientifically verified, is worthless to an outside party. ummm, whats your point then? i never reference FSM, i usually say thor or zeus or something ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/107 "2014-02-17T06:41:55Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > bollocks. you cant say jonah and the whale is false but the resurrection is true. conversely if you say the resurrection is false but do good to others is true, well there is no need at all for the bible. Sure you can. There are many shades of logic a theist could leapfrog to in order to show why they believe some parts of the Bible are true and some are not literal. All shades that aren’t really wrong per se, just something that will make you say, “I guess so.” ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/108 "2014-02-17T06:44:30Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Sure you can. There are many shades of logic a theist could leapfrog to in order to show why they believe some parts of the Bible are true and some are not literal. All shades that aren’t really wrong per se, just something that will make you say, “I guess so.” no, no offense but either tell me how: 1- you can say jonah and the whale is false but the resurrection is real 2- say the resurrection is false but do good to others is true, and the bible still have any validity you can’t just say well someone might think it is logical and not address either point ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/109 "2014-02-17T06:45:45Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > ummm, whats your point then? i never reference FSM, i usually say thor or zeus or something I have no objection to those comparisons. And my point was to address the thread topic, not make a point to you. ---
**Author:** ![OurLordPeace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e8c25b/32.png) [@OurLordPeace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OurLordPeace)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/110 "2014-02-17T06:47:40Z")
Full disclosure, I don’t have time to read all three pages of conversation. With that said, what is your point, here? Just because you find an argument annoying doesn’t make it invalid, in fact, it reminds me of Richard Dawkins pointing out that many people find clarity threatening, or in this case, annoying. I get annoyed with the false equivalencies and logical fallacies, like the “you’re just as dogmatic as a religious fundamentalist” line. That’s the point. I respect fundamentalists. It makes no sense to be a moderate. Do you only “sort of” believe it? Either your book is holy or it isn’t, and if it’s holy, there shouldn’t be anything wrong or bad in there. Put up or shut up. Make my day. Go pick up some venomous snakes. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/111 "2014-02-17T06:58:58Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > no, no offense but either tell me how: > > 1- you can say jonah and the whale is false but the resurrection is real > 2- say the resurrection is false but do good to others is true, and the bible still have any validity Is there a form of Christianity where people actually believe in either 1 or 2? Otherwise, why would I even bother with some fake examples? > [@](#): > > you can’t just say well someone might think it is logical and not address either point Yes I can. I’m not required to fabricate hypothetical logic for a hypothetical person. We both know that there is a sufficient logical theistic response as to why someone would believe in some parts of the Bible and not others. Science has shown that there was never a world-wide flood, so it is only logical for a believer to assume that the story might be based on a smaller flood, but is not in fact literally true. Now that you know at least one of the stories from the Bible is not literally true, you are now free to assume many of the stories are just parables and/or loosely based on actual events. Where the line is drawn is up to the individual. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/112 "2014-02-17T07:05:40Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Is there a form of Christianity where people actually believe in either 1 or 2? Otherwise, why would I even bother with some fake examples? > > Yes I can. I’m not required to fabricate hypothetical logic for a hypothetical person. We both know that there is a sufficient logical theistic response as to why someone would believe in some parts of the Bible and not others. > > Science has shown that there was never a world-wide flood, so it is only logical for a believer to assume that the story might be based on a smaller flood, but is not in fact literally true. Now that you know at least one of the stories from the Bible is not literally true, you are now free to assume many of the stories are just parables. Where the line is drawn is up to the individual. now you’re just being stupid. if you establish that there was no flood resurrection is no longer valid. that would be like trusting a know liar to tell the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/113 "2014-02-17T07:10:56Z")
This thread has gone a bit off topic, it seems. Let’s all try to get back to what the OP is asking and take any and all debates about the aside stuff to Great Debates. > [@Canadjun](#): > > In other words, you’re a twit. Don’t call other posters names outside of the Pit. > [@Robert163](#): > > wha!!! wha!!! the big mean atheist is being mean to me. wha!!! wha!!! > > i love hearing this > it all ways makes me laugh 1. Don’t make posts like these, because their only point appears to be to try to rile other posters up and we have a name for that kind of thing (which is against the rules). 2. By this point, you have made where you stand on the issue very clear and–right now–it appears to be basically a debate with you against everyone else. So please take it out of this thread and make a thread in Great Debates about it if you wish to debate it further. **Don’t continue the debate in this thread any longer, please** , we have a forum for that. To others: Let’s try to get back on topic. If you wish to continue the debate currently going on, let’s take it to GD. ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/114 "2014-02-17T07:12:14Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > now you’re just being stupid. if you establish that there was no flood resurrection is no longer valid. that would be like trusting a know liar to tell the truth. Now you’re just being pompous. It’s not really the same thing. The flood would have happened thousands of years before the story was written in the Bible. The Resurrection would have happened very near the time it was written about. Not to mention the fact that the Bible is a collection of many accounts from many different authors. Each claim has it’s own aggravating and mitigating factors that affect it’s credibility. ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/115 "2014-02-17T07:12:39Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > now you’re just being stupid. DO NOT insult others in this forum. Make a thread in The BBQ Pit forum if you wish to do that, that’s the only place where it’s allowed. See the above note for more info on taking the debate out of this thread. Idle Thoughts Moderator of IMHO ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/116 "2014-02-17T07:13:04Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > This thread has gone a bit off topic, it seems. Let’s all try to get back to what the OP is asking and take any and all debates about the aside stuff to Great Debates. > > Don’t call other posters names outside of the Pit. > > 1. Don’t make posts like these, because their only point appears to be to try to rile other posters up and we have a name for that kind of thing (which is against the rules). > > 2. By this point, you have made where you stand on the issue very clear and–right now–it appears to be basically a debate with you against everyone else. > So please take it out of this thread and make a thread in Great Debates about it if you wish to debate it further. **Don’t continue the debate in this thread any longer, please** , we have a forum for that. > To others: Let’s try to get back on topic. If you wish to continue the debate currently going on, let’s take it to GD. you’re telling me i can’t debate someone because, why? because too many people disagree with me? ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/117 "2014-02-17T07:15:21Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Now you’re just being pompous. It’s not really the same thing. The flood would have happened thousands of years before the story was written in the Bible. The Resurrection would have happened very near the time it was written about. Not to mention the fact that the Bible is a collection of many accounts from many different authors. Each claim has it’s own aggravating and mitigating factors that affect it’s credibility. I’m going to assume you didn’t see the post I made right before this one. Let’s stop the one-sided debate in this thread and take it either to GD or the Pit. > [@Robert163](#): > > you’re telling me i can’t debate someone because, why? because too many people disagree with me? No, I’m not telling you that. You can debate it all you want…in _Great Debates_ (the forum four places above this one). If you disagree with this mod decision, you can make a topic about it in ATMB (About This Message Board)…but stop the huge debate in this topic. Full stop. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/118 "2014-02-17T07:18:55Z")
> [@YoungKusher](#): > > Now you’re just being pompous. It’s not really the same thing. The flood would have happened thousands of years before the story was written in the Bible. The Resurrection would have happened very near the time it was written about. Not to mention the fact that the Bible is a collection of many accounts from many different authors. Each claim has it’s own aggravating and mitigating factors that affect it’s credibility. none of it has any credibility. the fact that you think it does is the problem. your argument holds up - if - some of the bible has credibility. but since you have yet to establish (and can not establish) that even some of it has credibility, you don’t get to say some parts do and some parts dont. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/119 "2014-02-17T07:19:56Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > I’m going to assume you didn’t see the post I made right before this one. Let’s stop the one-sided debate in this thread and take it either to GD or the Pit. > > No, I’m not telling you that. You can debate it all you want…in _Great Debates_ (the forum four places above this one). > > If you disagree with this mod decision, you can make a topic about it in ATMB (About This Message Board)…but stop the huge debate in this topic. Full stop. its not my fault someone started a religious thread in the wrong section of your site ---
**Author:** ![YoungKusher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3e96dc/32.png) [@YoungKusher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YoungKusher)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2014, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497/120 "2014-02-17T07:24:30Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > none of it has any credibility. the fact that you think it does is the problem. your argument holds up - if - some of the bible has credibility. but since you have yet to establish (and can not establish) that even some of it has credibility, you don’t get to say some parts do and some parts dont. My apologies to the Mod. I didn’t see your first post because I was typing mine. This is my last comment on the matter for obvious reasons. I never said I believe and I don’t believe any of the Bible bud… I took the stance of a third party who can recognize how someone could logically believe parts of the Bible and not other parts. It doesn’t have to be one way or the other. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-atheist-arguments/681497.md?page=7)