Most annoying atheist arguments

In My Humble Opinion
141

I’m an atheist, and on occasions find myself debating (almost exclusively online) with theists.
Many of the arguments are used by me – but in virtually all of the cases as a response to a silly / inflammatory argument made by the other side.
So:

Happens too many times. Annoying as hell, no matter what the debate is, and what side you’re on.

Only as a reply to: Atheism isn’t moral at base. Prove: see Stalin / Mao et. al.

Only as a reply to “Religious people will always be more moral than atheists” (you won’t believe how many time I’ve heard this silly pseudo-argument.)

See first point

I saw 5 votes at this time for this being the most annoying. WHAT!?
Judaism consider my sin to affect all other Jews. So I can understand why in my debates (Israel) this is a largely irrelevant. But who would consider this offensive?

I don’t recall seeing this done on purpose.

I think this is a rather good answer to the “primal reason” argument. Namely, without God, nothing would have been made. Or, sometimes: “OK, so there was a Big Bang. Who made the Big Bang?”

An annoying practice in any debate.

Isn’t this a special case of (1)?

Errrr…. Isn’t this the other way around? I mean, I have seen literally dozens (if not hundreds) of this “tactic” – but always from the religious side to the atheist side.

“Other absurd equivalents” – such as Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, and such?

Never heard of it been used as an argument that God doesn’t exist. I DID see it used to say that God cannot be omnipotent, omniscience, and good.

Only as a comeback to "without God there is no moral; Therefore if you’re an atheist you’re immoral.

Err… Why would anyone resort to an argument that claims to know the mind of a being whose’ mere existence is unproven and unclear, when they debate people who believe just that?

The way I heard it is slightly different: since there more than one religion, and they contradict, they can’t all be right. And with that I agree wholeheartily.

142

My experience is that except on forums, most atheists argue for their position only when attacked by evangelicals.

All bets are off on forums, of course. :wink:

143

My favorite thing about The One True Religion is that there are so many of them!

144

BTW, the list leaves out one of my favorite arguments (I’ll have to leave it to others whether it’s annoying): Arranging for a book is a pretty sloppy plan, from an omnipotent being, for spreading The Word.

145

Not sure about that one. Unfortunately, that did work rather well.

146

Another atheist chiming in…

Thinking the morals of maniacs (suicide bombers etc) apply to us all.

People who would show up in a census as Christian (to pick on them for a minute) can range from Fred Phelps types to those who are practically atheist but are a little superstitious and still like to put up a Christmas tree every December. There are people who are “religious” just for the social pleasure, or for meditative or therapeutic purposes. There are a million ways to be religious, and it’s annoying when atheists try to force them all into one box.

Now, at a minimum religious people by definition believe in some sort of divine, supernatural power. As an atheist I think they are mistaken about that. But that’s a point that can be argued (or not) without having to insist that someone who says they are religious believes things they do not believe.

And contrary to what some in this thread claim, you do not have to be a biblical literalist to be a Christian.

Arrogance is unattractive whether you’re right or wrong. Being right doesn’t mean you can’t be polite.

147

Agreed.

IRL, I don’t discuss the entire subject at all, unless someone directly invites me to participate in their religious discussion, their church, or asks me what religion I have.

In much the same way nobody really discusses the sun god Ra anymore. Unless you’re an Egyptologist, it’s not really something that comes up in casual conversation.

People seem to forget that everyone is a disbeliever in a wide assortment of gods, and that atheism is the default position. There aren’t too many persons dedicated to the worship of Saturn anymore. So unless someone invites you to talk about Saturn, it doesn’t really come up.

I don’t wake up each morning going “How can I disbelieve in this specific god today?”

It’s just something that happens automatically, for every single person on the planet. For me, it happens with one additional deity than most, but otherwise I am exactly the same as the others.

148

Except for Hindus, who believe in all the gods.

149

Well, they believe in the Hindu gods.

They don’t believe in the Egyptian gods, the Norse gods, or the Christian god.

So, again, the only thing that’s different is that I disbelieve in slightly more gods than they do.

150

I’ve met Hindus who say that the Christian god is one more god. They don’t believe in the supremacy of the Christian god. And this is in the US, where this view might avoid lots of arguments - I don’t know what the fundamentalist Hindus believe in India.

151

Hmmm…

I’ve gotta be completely honest- this sounds to me like Hindus attempting to make their religion less threatening to the Christian majority.

One of the commandments is that there are no other gods. It’s pretty closed for debate whether Jehovah hangs out peacefully with the Hindu gods, because one of his signature claims is that he’s the only god, there are no other gods, and you’re not supposed to worship any other gods.

Now I know religion is open to interpretation, but it’s a pretty odd interpretation to simply just ignore the commandments entirely and still consider oneself to be a believer in the Christian/Jewish god.

152

I believe Hinduism says that all religions and gods are equally valid ways of approaching God as He truly is; a.k.a. Brahman. See Ramakrishna

153

That’s a fancy way of leaving the definition of God blank. If that’s the case, then I would truly love a moment of peace and quiet from the religious fundies who simply will not shut up about how their god demands I live my life.

154

Despite being theistic, I have far more in common with atheists in general than theists in general in terms of how I think and what I believe.
I participate in this board intelligently and thoughtfully. Most annoying atheistic arguments? The ones that assume I’m fucking stupid. Yeesh. You could at least do me the courtesy of not assuming that what you believe as an atheist and what I believe as a theist are irreconcilable just because the babytalk-level mindless denizens who engage in this discussion elsewhere have declared the perspectives irreconcilable. I choose to use some words as terms that refer to things I consider real and they happen to be terms that YOU use to refer to things you do NOT consider to be real. You could be more curious and less dismissive.
We might find that, indeed, our different choices with regards to whether to describe ourselves as theistic or atheistic DO reflect irreconcilable diffs in some axiomatic concept or understanding or whatever… that doesn’t mean those points of divergence are the same as you’ve experienced in your discussions with Twue Believers pounding on their damn bibles or preaching at you while you’re just trying to get home from work on the goddam subway. Give me a break. This is the SDMB.

155

Not blank, just poorly defined–like poetry. Are there many aggressive Hindu fundies where you live? :wink:

Me too, AHunter3.

156

I checked all but the last two.

157

Just a couple of quick anthropological notes…

The Christmas Tree mentioned above is a variant of the Tanenbaum used to celebrate Yule, a Norse (pagan) tradition. As with the Yule (midWinter solstice weeks) celebration, the symbol was co-opted and redefined by Christians because they couldn’t stop the locals from practicing it. [Okay, so the motive is my cynical interpretation.]

Karma is well-known in Europe and the Americas as a Buddhist concept, but it is actually a key facet of Hindu teachings that was borrowed to form the fundamental root question of Buddhism.

The “precepts regarding personal conduct” found in Buddhism are consistent with the premises and concepts it embodies – but such is true of any religious teaching (or faction thereof). What I found quite amusing was my high school friend leaving one Baptist church that wouldn’t let him play Dungeons-and-Dragons and instead attending another Baptist church that would let him play D&D but wouldn’t let him dance. He was okay with that; he couldn’t dance anyway.

I have known Hindu practitioners who note that, in addition to their enormous pantheon, They are comfortable recognizing everything as ‘divine’ and, therefore worthy of respect. Quite honestly, I find this to be a beautifully refreshing contrast to the “It’s all yours to deal with” stewardship described in Genesis (particularly because Distributionists somehow interpret that to mean “Use it all up in order to trigger the Rapture”).

–G!

158

Let’s remember that Atheists just believe in one less god than Christians do.

Maybe this question needs a thread of its own, but to me, it seems to fit in here.

In the history of The Straight Dope, has any Defend your Faith/Lack of Faith or Why My Faith/Lack of Faith is better than your Faith/Lack of Faith thread ever resulted in someone actually changing their Faith/Lack of Faith?

[200 posts where member Straight and member Dope go back and forth presenting arguments, counter-arguments, quotations, and citations backing their side of the argument]

Straight: How can you be so blind? The Truth is clearly A! [hyperlink to yet another site with something supporting A]

Dope: Were you dropped on your head as an infant? The Truth is clearly Not-A! [hyperlink to yet another site with something supporting Not-A]

Straight: I never thought of it that way. You’re right. You’ve convinced me! Not-A is The One True Faith/Lack of Faith [select one]. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Moderator: [scolding Dope for suggesting Straight had a mental health issue]

You know, sort of like the 4th to the last panel in a Jack Chick tract?

159

Very telling that the current poll winner (the first in the list) could be interpreted as “well, deep down I suspect you’re right, but your self-confident manner is bruising my ego.” In other words, a complaint about style, not substance. Blaming the messenger.

160

I would like to point out that not all athiest (or theist, for that matter) arguments are made with the goal of changing the opposing side’s mind.

For example, other purposes may include, but are not limited to, self aggrandizement. When it’s perceived by the theist that such an argument appears to be mocking solely for that purpose, the effect of the argument is lost, and the merits of the point are not given anywhere near the consideration they may deserve. At this point, it’s no longer a debate between opposing viewpoints.

Robert163 kept stating that being polite hasn’t changed minds, therefore a mocking approach seems to be called for. I don’t think this approach has had much success in changing minds either. (Granted, I have not actually gathered statistics on this.) What I have observed is that some true believers develope a type of martyr complex, and, thus, even had their faith strengthened. “Satan is trying to lead me astray!”