Most annoying atheist arguments

[Idle_Thoughts]

@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.

@Robert163

its not my fault someone started a religious thread in the wrong section of your site

Religious threads can be and are allowed here too and can (and have) go on without a huge debate. Start one in Great Debates.

Stop posting in this topic, or you will get a warning.
Take the debate of “God exists/doesn’t exist/if religion is wrong/right” to Great Debates if you wish to continue it. You can even link to this topic and quote posters posts from it…

Or you can start a thread in the BBQ Pit about all of the posters in this thread (or about religion in general)…

Or you can start a thread in ATMB about this mod ruling…

You have many options here, but one of them is not “Keep posting in this thread”.

[Robert163]

@Idle_Thoughts

Or you can start a thread in ATMB about this mod ruling…

how do i do that and what “rule” have i broken?

[Idle_Thoughts]

@Robert163

how do i do that and what “rule” have i broken?

Feel free to start a topic here and I’ll answer it.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=2

[Puzzler]

Errr…

@the_diego

I’m an atheist and I can’t relate to any of the arguments listed above. My brand of atheism doesn’t waste time with the bible or anything having to do with the practice of religion.

@the_diego

An atheist questions the existence of a God. That is a bit removed from the way people behave themselves individually and collectively, referred to as “practice of one’s religion.” As a matter of fact, I’m a practicing Catholic and I slowly discover the religion allows for some skepticism, even a momentary wavering of faith.

Going to your question, “who will talk you out of your beliefs,” no one will.

<Bolding mine>
Huh??

[the_diego]

ermmm… I’m both.

[Canadjun]

@Idle_Thoughts

Don’t call other posters names outside of the Pit.

Sorry! Actually I realized I shouldn’t have said that outside of the pit not long after leaving SDMB last night. Figured there was no point in going back in just to retract that.

[Gyrate]

I’m not a theist but there are certainly some arguments on that list that I’m sick of hearing, if only because they weaken my position by making all non-theists look like angry jerks. I accordingly ticked the following:

Forget the argument itself - it’s the arrogant/rude way it’s expressed. - Yup. My main problem with Richard Dawkins is that he can be an utter dick sometimes.

Bringing up the bodies - religion’s wrong because of the Crusades/Inquisition etc. - This is only useful as a counterargument to “Christian/religious people are automatically better/nicer/more moral because of their beliefs”. Not useful at all if you’re just using it to try and tar all believers as bloodthirsty maniacs… Speaking of which…
*
Thinking the morals of maniacs (suicide bombers etc) apply to us all. * Same as above.

Being more dogmatic or close-minded in non-belief/science as any fundy. It goes with the first one - irrational frothing in defense of rationalism is itself irrational.

That I’ve simply deluded myself or am simple minded. That’s just your basic ad hominem. And also one of the reasons I no longer watch Bill Maher.

The problem of evil; God can’t exist because evil does (or variant) - This is resolved by not having an oversimplistic view of “God”.

On the other hand, I want to know who’s sick of people saying “I don’t hurt anyone, don’t force my beliefs - leave me alone and MYOB.” Really? People not wanting to having your religion forced on them bother you?

[OurLordPeace]

@Gyrate

I’m not a theist but there are certainly some arguments on that list that I’m sick of hearing, if only because they weaken my position by making all non-theists look like angry jerks. I accordingly ticked the following:

Forget the argument itself - it’s the arrogant/rude way it’s expressed. - Yup. My main problem with Richard Dawkins is that he can be an utter dick sometimes.

There’s nothing wrong with being arrogant when you’re right. Once again, some people find clarity threatening.

Bringing up the bodies - religion’s wrong because of the Crusades/Inquisition etc. - This is only useful as a counterargument to “Christian/religious people are automatically better/nicer/more moral because of their beliefs”. Not useful at all if you’re just using it to try and tar all believers as bloodthirsty maniacs…

But they should be, if they take their religions seriously. Also, religious violence is about nothing.

Speaking of which…
*
Thinking the morals of maniacs (suicide bombers etc) apply to us all. * Same as above.

Indeed, same as above.

Being more dogmatic or close-minded in non-belief/science as any fundy. It goes with the first one - irrational frothing in defense of rationalism is itself irrational.

That’s a contradiction in terms.

That I’ve simply deluded myself or am simple minded. That’s just your basic ad hominem. And also one of the reasons I no longer watch Bill Maher.

It also happens to be true.

The problem of evil; God can’t exist because evil does (or variant) - This is resolved by not having an oversimplistic view of “God”.

…and thereby having a fallible deity.

On the other hand, I want to know who’s sick of people saying “I don’t hurt anyone, don’t force my beliefs - leave me alone and MYOB.” Really? People not wanting to having your religion forced on them bother you?

People do feel it’s their obligation to do just that.

[Guinastasia]

@the_diego

ermmm… I’m both.

You can’t be. They’re mutually exclusive. Being a practicing Catholic generally requires that you believe in the teachings of the Church – that there IS a God. You can participate in Church rituals, but that’s pretty meaningless. I mean, why bother?

[Dr.Drake]

@Guinastasia

You can’t be. They’re mutually exclusive. Being a practicing Catholic generally requires that you believe in the teachings of the Church – that there IS a God. You can participate in Church rituals, but that’s pretty meaningless. I mean, why bother?

This is a very Protestant point of view. You can certainly be a practising Catholic without belief, much as you can be a practising Jew. It’s not condoned by the Church, of course, but it’s quite common, as people choose to keep their family and community happy. I have many cousins who are the same as the_diego. As long as you don’t take Communion, there not even a problem from the point of view of the Church. Sure, you SHOULD take confession regularly, but lots of people don’t. Again, see John Arnold’s Belief and Unbelief in Medieval Europe for evidence that being a nonbelieving* practising Catholic has been done for hundreds of years.

(*No evidence for or against outright atheist)

[LibrarySpy]

@Weeping Wyvern

“Christians are hypocrites because they claim to obey the Bible yet they eat pork, eat shellfish, wear mixed fibers, work on the Sabbath, don’t stone adulterers, etc.”

It betrays a total ignorance of both Jewish and Christian theology. The New Testament says that, since the death of Christ, the ceremonies of the Mosaic code are abolished. But even more fundamentally, the Hebrew scriptures specifically declare that the Law was given ONLY TO THE JEWS, and to no other nation. Gentile pig-eating is not sin, under either system.

This is the only item that irks me too. Misquoting/taking out of context the Bible/Koran/other holy text.

How many people were murdered by Christians, equivalencies, rape, evil, Christians today being assholes, my own stupidity… all of those things are completely true. They don’t bother me. Why should they? But if you have a misunderstanding about the Bible or about faith, I’d love to clear it up.

But as this thread proves, there’s not much point to attempting that. So there’s probably not much point in being frustrated by it.

[Malacandra]

You know, I kind of made a bet with myself that this thread would have had the shit hijacked out of it, and it sure has. Kind of a shame when the OP put a lot of thought into an interesting poll, but there you have it.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@Gyrate

I’m not a theist but there are certainly some arguments on that list that I’m sick of hearing, if only because they weaken my position by making all non-theists look like angry jerks. I accordingly ticked the following:

The problem of evil; God can’t exist because evil does (or variant) - This is resolved by not having an oversimplistic view of “God”.

I’m not an atheist, obviously. But I’d say the problem of evil is both a good argument and a bad one. In some ways it’s a powerful argument against (small-o) orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christianity has answers to it, including some very well thought out ones, but they’re answers that even a lot of Christians, at tough times in their lives, don’t find especially ‘relatable’.

It’s not, though, an argument for atheism. There are plenty of religious views that get around the problem of evil, either by denying that God is all-powerful (like the Zoroastrians, the Manichaeans, and some medieval Christian heresies), or by holding that God is beyond good and evil (like Calvinists and, I think some Sunni Muslims do), or by holding that evil is an illusion (like some Hindus do).

[Guinastasia]

@Dr.Drake

This is a very Protestant point of view. You can certainly be a practising Catholic without belief, much as you can be a practising Jew. It’s not condoned by the Church, of course, but it’s quite common, as people choose to keep their family and community happy. I have many cousins who are the same as the_diego. As long as you don’t take Communion, there not even a problem from the point of view of the Church. Sure, you SHOULD take confession regularly, but lots of people don’t. Again, see John Arnold’s Belief and Unbelief in Medieval Europe for evidence that being a nonbelieving* practising Catholic has been done for hundreds of years.

(*No evidence for or against outright atheist)

Hmmm…well maybe a better term would be a “Cultural Catholic”? It just seems odd. But hey, more power to you.

(And this is coming from a lapsed Catholic – I am NOT a Protestant! More like a vague theist)

[Askthepizzaguy]

I think a good number of atheists don’t argue to try to convert people away from religion, but to make themselves feel good about their non-belief, which is much more rational, from their perspective.

Let’s face it, if you’re a believer in religion, you’ve probably heard all the logical arguments against it, and still choose to believe. So nothing an atheist is going to say to you is going to change your mind anyway.

It’s not a list of reasons why you should convert away from religion, it’s a set of obstacles which prevent me from converting to your religion.

If you, for example, do not have a problem with the entire tale of Noah’s Ark, from spectacularly silly start to spectacularly silly finish, then there is absolutely nothing that can be said to persuade you to stop believing in it.

Me, I have a problem with it, and the whole rest of the tale, and the church, and the doctrine, and the cherry-picked moral message of the modern age which is mostly don’t have sex until marriage, don’t get divorced, and gay is teh evilz.

So I can sit here all day and list all the reasons why I think you’re silly for believing, but really, honestly? It will always be more a list of reasons why I would feel completely silly if I believed in that stuff, and it’s preventing me from ever thinking that it is anything but a waste of one’s time.

I don’t think I’ve ever come across someone who believed they could be debated or argued out of religion, and I’ve never really believed I could convince someone. If someone believes in the world’s oldest placebo, there’s no amount of medical studies which will sway them otherwise.

[Dr.Drake]

@Guinastasia

(And this is coming from a lapsed Catholic – I am NOT a Protestant! More like a vague theist)

I should have been clearer: I didn’t mean “you [specifically] sound like a Protestant,” (which would be pointlessly ad hominem) but more “you [generally] sound like a Protestant,” i.e. some of the key notions about religion in the English-speaking world are disproportionately influenced by Protestant Christianity.

I’m the neopagan child of a lapsed Catholic and of a Protestant on hiatus, so I’m certainly not one to throw stones based on one’s personal faith.

[Guinastasia]

@Askthepizzaguy

I think a good number of atheists don’t argue to try to convert people away from religion, but to make themselves feel good about their non-belief, which is much more rational, from their perspective.

Let’s face it, if you’re a believer in religion, you’ve probably heard all the logical arguments against it, and still choose to believe. So nothing an atheist is going to say to you is going to change your mind anyway.

It’s not a list of reasons why you should convert away from religion, it’s a set of obstacles which prevent me from converting to your religion.

If you, for example, do not have a problem with the entire tale of Noah’s Ark, from spectacularly silly start to spectacularly silly finish, then there is absolutely nothing that can be said to persuade you to stop believing in it.

Me, I have a problem with it, and the whole rest of the tale, and the church, and the doctrine, and the cherry-picked moral message of the modern age which is mostly don’t have sex until marriage, don’t get divorced, and gay is teh evilz.

Again, these are some of the complaints listed – that it’s assumed that religion automatically equals Christianity.

[Askthepizzaguy]

@Guinastasia

Again, these are some of the complaints listed – that it’s assumed that religion automatically equals Christianity.

Most of the speakers of the English language that I come across are under the Abrahamic religion umbrella. Other faiths don’t have such a violent stranglehold on our culture and politics.

I could knock down the idea of karma, for example, but who would I be talking to?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Cite:

Unless you’re from east/south asia, your religion probably has something to do with Abraham, and/or Jesus, and/or Mohammed. Except for specific Bible stories, the arguments against the claims made by the Hindu religion are essentially the same. Arguments against a singular god are about the same as ones against multiple gods.

Most of what remains are some interesting non-theistic religions, and the specific claims they make are rebutted by specific counter-arguments. With Buddhism for example, the concept of karma is one that is easy to critique, and specific precepts regarding personal conduct are arbitrary and unreasonable.

[Gyrate]

@OurLordPeace

There’s nothing wrong with being arrogant when you’re right. Once again, some people find clarity threatening.

There’s a difference between “having clarity” and “being arrogant”. I feel that I have clarity on many points. I don’t feel that this is well-served by being an asshole about it.

But they should be, if they take their religions seriously. Also, religious violence is about nothing.

Only if you consider religions to be monolithic entities. People often disagree on points of dogma, on scriptural interpretations, and on the actions of other followers.

That’s a contradiction in terms.

What is?

It also happens to be true.

No. It isn’t. And I refer you to my first point above.

…and thereby having a fallible deity.

Again, only if you have an oversimplistic view of God.

@Hector_St_Clare

I’m not an atheist, obviously. But I’d say the problem of evil is both a good argument and a bad one. In some ways it’s a powerful argument against (small-o) orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christianity has answers to it, including some very well thought out ones, but they’re answers that even a lot of Christians, at tough times in their lives, don’t find especially ‘relatable’.

It’s not, though, an argument for atheism. There are plenty of religious views that get around the problem of evil, either by denying that God is all-powerful (like the Zoroastrians, the Manichaeans, and some medieval Christian heresies), or by holding that God is beyond good and evil (like Calvinists and, I think some Sunni Muslims do), or by holding that evil is an illusion (like some Hindus do).

I agree - the “there is evil therefore GOD FAIL LOLOLOL” argument I hear occasionally is ludicrous and often a complete strawman (strawgod?) approach. Even the “God works in mysterious ways” or “Best of all possible worlds” or “Long game/evil serves the greater good” arguments, themselves simplistic, provide some responses to the question without requiring an inept deity.