# Most annoying theist arguments **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 16, 2014, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-theist-arguments/681496 "2014-02-16T21:55:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-theist-arguments/681496/61 "2014-02-19T13:25:54Z")
> [@The\_Lurker\_Above](#): > > Quoting bible verses has to be way up there on the list. If I considered the bible to be authoritative/persuasive I’d _already_ be a christian. Double bonus points if the quote is of Psalm 14:1, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” The writer said 'The fool hath said in his heart there is no god" The psalmist says ; " I said you are gods and sons of god" Non is from God at least it can’t be prove it is anything except the ideas and thoughts of another human. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-theist-arguments/681496/62 "2014-02-19T13:36:09Z")
> [@Blaster\_Master](#): > > I’m a theist, so I only voted for the last one, but I find a lot of these arguments tired as well. Personally, I think the whole idea of trying to convince someone else that God exists is not only generally borderline impossible, but it’s pointless. Personally, I think we’re more called to live as well, as morally, with as much love as we can, and and all the rest behind that is ultimately the small stuff. So, I guess that despite that I am a theist, I’d tend to agree with Marcus Aurelius’s assessment to, paraphrasing, live a good life, and a just God won’t care how devout you’ve been. > > That all said, I still find some arguments that I hear particularly annoying. Some of them are just a matter of trying to relate a personal experience, which I can’t blame someone too much for trying, since we all do that in some matter or another. It’s not much different than when someone loves a song or a movie or a book or a show and someone else doesn’t and they try to convince them how awesome it is by relating how it moved them. So that one, while obviously not very good, doesn’t really annoy me. > > I think the one that annoys me the most is quoting scripture. It begs the question, because it’s only convincing if you already believe that the source of the scripture is authoritative. Worse, when it is quoted, it’s usually something threatening, like how non-believers will face torment, which is about the worst way to present God. I’m not the least bit surprised that so many atheists are turned off by scripture if that’s how it’s so often presented to them. > > I also am annoyed when I hear someone use Pascal’s wager, mostly because I think it’s emphasizing the worst reasons to have faith. I don’t believe in God because I hope to get rewarded in the afterlife. In fact, if the only reason you believe is because you want to be rewarded in the afterlife or you’re afraid of eternal punishment for not believing. It makes God look vindictive, and it makes it look like faith is about fear and that morality is based on that fear, rather than love. Personally, I don’t even really believe in an afterlife, so I find the whole argument rather pointless anyway. > > And on that same line, I also find the moral argument annoying because while I believe the nature of God is that he is morally perfect, or at least so close to it compared to our perspective that we cannot discern it, but the idea that he is the arbiter of morality and the sole source of it is ridiculous. All morality is is how we decide what is right and wrong, it’s not just some set of random rules, and morality is derived from knowledge and wisdom which, even as man becomes more knowledgable and wise, we can asymptotically approach a perfect morality, whether or not God actually exists. That is, God’s perfect morality derives from his omniscience. And the idea that, while perhaps well intentioned, we can necessarily understand a morality derived from omniscience, and that it can be so simply summarized seems to miss the point that it’s not about just following a set of rules laid out for us, but working toward discovering the minutiae. So, really, it seems to me that this whole argument arises out of a fundamental misunderstanding of what morality even is. > > The finally one I find particularly annoying is the “angry at God” argument. Yes, I’ve met a few people who claim to be atheists who seem to have a huge amount of anger toward God and religion as a whole. But not being that person, how can I assert that I know better what they really believe and what they really feel than they do? I could actually appreciate that idea that there are a few people out there who actually are “pretending” to be an atheist because they’re angry at God, but so what? I don’t think that’s a majority or even a significant fraction, and I think a lot of the anger that a theist might think is directed at God is really just directed at something else and they’re just assuming motives. Hell, I’ve met a handful of theists who are surprisingly angry people; some people are just angry people for whatever reason. Overwhelmingly, the people in my life that are atheists aren’t angry, they just plain don’t believe, and they’re generally pretty cool talking about religion. And while I do know one or two that I can’t have a religious discussion with, I know at least as many religious people I can’t either. So, if I were to have a discussion with someone I didn’t know about religion, how could I possibly be so arrogant to believe I know more about what they think and feel and why than they do, when I know nothing about them? > > After all that, I’m still bothered by any based on logical fallacies, like “billions of people can’t be wrong”, but at least those don’t basically assume that somehow an atheist is less of a person than a theist or utterly misrepresents the ideas behind faith. What about the believers that the world was flat,or Humanoids living on Mars? No one really can Know there is a God, Just believe there is, ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2014, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-theist-arguments/681496/63 "2014-02-19T23:24:19Z")
The most annoying argument is the one that says: “If you are atheist you are claiming you know God doesn’t exist, and that means you are basing it on faith. No, you don’t get to say that you have no beliefs because I will define atheist to mean what I need it to mean in order to have this argument.” ---
**Author:** ![Askthepizzaguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askthepizzaguy/32/9405_2.png) [@Askthepizzaguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askthepizzaguy)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-theist-arguments/681496/64 "2014-02-20T00:45:55Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > The most annoying argument is the one that says: “If you are atheist you are claiming you know God doesn’t exist, and that means you are basing it on faith. No, you don’t get to say that you have no beliefs because I will define atheist to mean what I need it to mean in order to have this argument.” I am less annoyed by that because although I have no beliefs in a higher power, me personally, I have a position. The common definitions and defining characteristics of the God of the Bible are such that there are certainly strong arguments to be made which demonstrates either he doesn’t exist or those definitions are inaccurate. And of course, within the Bible itself, those definitions contradict each other, rendering it impossible for the being to exist and for all descriptions of the being to be truthful. [http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by\_name.html](http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html) Among many, many other direct contradictions. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-theist-arguments/681496/65 "2014-02-20T01:16:24Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > The most annoying argument is the one that says: “If you are atheist you are claiming you know God doesn’t exist, and that means you are basing it on faith. No, you don’t get to say that you have no beliefs because I will define atheist to mean what I need it to mean in order to have this argument.” Wouldn’t that be confusing an atheist and an agnostic? ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-theist-arguments/681496/66 "2014-02-20T02:08:30Z")
The morals one is pretty annoying. Doesn’t really come up very often, but when it does, I usually ask if that means they’d be a morally repugnant Human if they weren’t afraid of God. That’s kind of a trap, because if they say yes (and no one has so far), my next words would be “The Bible says that God knows what is in your heart. What does he see in yours?” Its the same logical fallacy as “If Drugs are legal, everyone will do them.” Sorry, I have no interest in doing cocaine, meth or speed, to name three. Does that mean you would be doing all of those if they were legal? The whole ‘God is Love’ thing is easy to attack. I point out how Justice, Fairness and all of that don’t exist in the Universe, they only exist in our minds. So the Universe God created is pretty much proof that he isn’t “Love”. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-theist-arguments/681496/67 "2014-02-20T12:31:42Z")
Voted “Armchair psych” and “can’t prove god doesn’t exist”. The first because it’s more aggressively self-centered & arrogant than average ; the second because while it takes half a millisecond to figure out why it’s a nonsensical argument the person still a) didn’t and b) didn’t \*enough \*that they think it’s not just a clever quip but also a meaningful argument. Every other example is shoddy thinking on some level, but the sheer amount of shoddy on that one makes me want to shake the dense out of them. The morals one just makes me laugh. Because, yeah, it necessarily implies that, were it not for GAWD’s own restraints, the person asking the question would, no questions asked, be a serial cannibal pedophile horse rapist. Of course, that’s not true either and they actually get their morals the same place I get mine (that would be in the gut, Bob), but asking that question is so much like handing me a baseball bat and pleading for to me to pummel them with it, I can’t be mad. ---
**Author:** ![Projammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/projammer/32/559_2.png) [@Projammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Projammer)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-theist-arguments/681496/68 "2014-02-20T13:41:19Z")
Pascal’s Wager always reminds me of a cartoon I saw once where an imam, a rabbi, and the pope are walking up to Heaven’s gate and all of them are thinking ‘Uh Oh’ because Thor is the gatekeeper. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2014, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-theist-arguments/681496/69 "2014-02-20T13:50:04Z")
I checked every box (except the last two). ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2014, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-theist-arguments/681496/70 "2014-02-21T12:51:52Z")
> [@F.U.Shakespeare](#): > > My favorite response to Pascal’s Wager is to take it further: if you base your beliefs on maximizing your rewards as a function of what you have to ante up, why settle for mere eternal life in heaven? > > Why not a religion that offers something here and now? Or more than just life in the hereafter (like virgins and stuff)? Or how about a warranty? The Church of the Subgenius offers eternal salvation, or triple your money back. By the reasoning of Pascal’s Wager, these are clearly superior religions to Christianity. > > One of my favorite annoying arguments: “I concede that you know more about Christianity than I do. _That proves you’re not really an atheist!_ If you’re an atheist, why did you learn so much about Christianity? My relative ignorance defeats your superior knowledge!” There are many atheists that became atheists because they read and thought about what they had read in the Bible. Contradictions and searching for truth caused many to leave their Christian beliefs aside. A study showed that Atheists know the Bible better than many Christians. Many Christians just believe what they are taught and not question if it is true or not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/most-annoying-theist-arguments/681496.md?page=3)