# SDMB Atheists..point me in the direction of the most convincing arguments for Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 9, 2007, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403 "2007-12-09T19:05:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Jesticulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Jesticulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jesticulator)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/101 "2007-12-11T15:26:19Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Wrong on both counts. Atheists have only asked questions – questions which you have been extremely reticent to give answers for. [/QUOTE] Hmmm … “Wrong on both counts” is a question. “Atheists have only asked questions” is a question. “you have been extremely reticent to give answers” is a question. “This is an absolute fact” is a question. I get it now. Anything that an atheist says is a question and not a claim. Okay. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/102 "2007-12-11T15:29:39Z")
Not that you can’t necessarily do that to **Diogenes’s** posts, but all those are from a post from afterwards and not counted in his claim. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/103 "2007-12-11T15:36:45Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] Hmmm … “Wrong on both counts” is a question. “Atheists have only asked questions” is a question. “you have been extremely reticent to give answers” is a question. “This is an absolute fact” is a question. I get it now. Anything that an atheist says is a question and not a claim. Okay. [/QUOTE] This is evasive, sophist nonsense. I was commenting specifically on the discussion as it pertained to atheist challenges of theist assertions. You keep falsely asserting that these questions amount to assertions in themeselves and claiming (erroneously) that atheists have a burden to prove the null. You may think you’re putting atheists on the defensive but all you’re really doing is obfuscating and showing rhetorical immaturity. ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/104 "2007-12-11T15:42:08Z")
[QUOTE=Baldwin] I know you weren’t addressing me, but I might as well take my turn. I reject other theories (and things that are not actually theories, such as the myth in Genesis) as explanations of the origin of species because they don’t have any good evidence to support them. So, I definitely understand that, but still don’t understand why you reject the theory of evolution by natural selection. It’s not for lack of evidence, so why is it? [/quote] \*Do \* I reject the theory of evolution by natural selection? Where did I say that? All I did say would that it would be asinine to argue that you failed to understand properly why you reject all other accounts of the origin of species. > [@Baldwin](#): > > Oh, and why do you reject all other gods besides besides the one you believe in? When you understand why you reject all the others, maybe you’ll understand why I reject yours. Probably not. You see, this is the part that rather crosses the border to outright insult - arguing that I do not understand why I reject all other gods, and that if I did, I would naturally understand why you reject mine; and then you compound the offence by saying “Probably not”, which I suspect is not a criticism of the poor strength of the argument but an attempt to imply that I am deficient in reasoning skill. ---
**Author:** ![Jesticulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Jesticulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jesticulator)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/105 "2007-12-11T16:12:02Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I was commenting specifically on the discussion as it pertained to atheist challenges of theist assertions. [/quote] Specifically, which “theist assertions” did \*\*Chief Pedant \*\* present? (It was his post that started all of this.) I’ll post it again, in its entirety: > [@](#): > > It may be more convenient to simply inquire of someone why he believes in God but not the Easter Bunny or the Great Turtle. > > The problem with formalizing arguments is that it gives the whole notion a sense of grand and complicated proofs and counterproofs. Reducing the discussion to a similar magical being in which the proof-asker does not believe will turn any arguments he has on himself. > > What, then, is the most convincing argument against Santa Claus? That he is a human invention? That no magic has ever actually been shown to occur? That there are dozens of obviously invented traditions around him? > > Exactly… Again, which “theist assertions” did \*\*Chief Pedant \*\* present? > [@](#): > > You keep falsely asserting that these questions amount to assertions in themselves and claiming (erroneously) that atheists have a burden to prove the null. Huh? Where did I claim that atheists have a burden to prove the null? How about just sticking to what I wrote, rather than to what you think (erroneously) that I wrote? > [@](#): > > You may think you’re putting atheists on the defensive but all you’re really doing is obfuscating and showing rhetorical immaturity. Well, it seems to me that you are defending your position, so, I guess, you \*are \* on the defensive. And thanks for the compliment. 😛 Anyway, I’m tired of this. (As, I’m sure, you are.) With your practically perfect command of logic, perhaps you shouldn’t be wasting your time arguing with “lil ole me”. Perhaps you should be meeting with high-level clergy and theologians and pointing out the error of \*their \* ways. I doubt that they could beat you in an argument. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/106 "2007-12-11T16:39:49Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] Specifically, which “theist assertions” did \*\*Chief Pedant \*\* present? (It was his post that started all of this.) I’ll post it again, in its entirety:Again, which “theist assertions” did \*\*Chief Pedant \*\* present? [/quote] The whole thing was proposed as an exercise in showing theists why the god hypothesis fails to persuade. The whole thing is a response to the god hypothesis, none of it amounts to a positive assertion about the non-existence of God. > [@](#): > > Huh? Where did I claim that atheists have a burden to prove the null? Demanding that atheists prove there is no difference between a beliefin god and in Santa is a demand to prove the null. > [@](#): > > How about just sticking to what I wrote, rather than to what you think (erroneously) that I wrote? That’s what I am doing. > [@](#): > > Well, it seems to me that you are defending your position, so, I guess, you \*are \* on the defensive. And thanks for the compliment. 😛 No, I’m pointing out your own fallacies, not defending anything. > [@](#): > > With your practically perfect command of logic, perhaps you shouldn’t be wasting your time arguing with “lil ole me”. Perhaps you should be meeting with high-level clergy and theologians and pointing out the error of \*their \* ways. I doubt that they could beat you in an argument. What reason would I have for wanting to explain to “high level clergy and theologians” why I have never been persuaded to believe in their gods? Why would they care? Why should I care that they ARE persuaded? As a matter of fact, it is fairly easy to rebut all the classical proofs of God and anyone trained in theology or the clergy already knows all the rebuttals. Educated theists understand that their beliefs cannot be empirically proven, so they don’t bother to try. Educated atheists understand that gods cannot be empirically _disproven_ so they don’t bother to try. There’s nothing to argue about. The null still holds empirically. Both sides understand that. There’s also no reason for an atheist to care if someone else believes in God. Why do you assume that atheists would necessarily be out to deconvert people? Evangelism is for the religious. ---
**Author:** ![Jesticulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Jesticulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jesticulator)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/107 "2007-12-11T17:13:56Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] The whole thing was proposed as an exercise in showing theists why the god hypothesis fails to persuade. The whole thing is a response to the god hypothesis, none of it amounts to a positive assertion about the non-existence of God. [/quote] Who are you arguing with here? Did _I_ claim that “it amounts to a positive assertion about the non-existence of God”? > [@](#): > > Demanding that atheists prove there is no difference between a belief in god and in Santa is a demand to prove the null. Really? Are you saying that anyone can make a comparison between any two things without needing to justify that the two things are similar enough to warrant the comparison? > [@](#): > > As a matter of fact, it is fairly easy to rebut all the classical proofs of God and anyone trained in theology or the clergy already knows all the rebuttals. Some more of your “questions”? Okay, seriously, in your quote above, you say: “As a matter of **fact** ”; “\*\*all \*\* the classical proofs”; “\*\*anyone \*\* trained in theology”; “knows \*\*all \*\* the rebuttals”. How do you get off making such sweeping assertions without providing any evidence, let alone proof? ACCORDING TO YOUR VERY OWN CITE (hey, these capitals are nice!) the “burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.” Something. Not just an assertion about a god-belief. Something. Is that clear? Please back up your assertions or shut up. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/108 "2007-12-11T17:44:28Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] Who are you arguing with here? Did _I_ claim that “it amounts to a positive assertion about the non-existence of God”?Really? Are you saying that anyone can make a comparison between any two things without needing to justify that the two things are similar enough to warrant the comparison?Some more of your “questions”? Okay, seriously, in your quote above, you say: “As a matter of **fact** ”; “\*\*all \*\* the classical proofs”; “\*\*anyone \*\* trained in theology”; “knows \*\*all \*\* the rebuttals”. How do you get off making such sweeping assertions without providing any evidence, let alone proof? ACCORDING TO YOUR VERY OWN CITE (hey, these capitals are nice!) the “burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.” Something. Not just an assertion about a god-belief. Something. Is that clear? Please back up your assertions or shut up. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. 😃 [/QUOTE] Somehow **Jesticulator** seems very appropriate for you, what with all the hand-waving you’re doing. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/109 "2007-12-11T17:47:32Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] Who are you arguing with here? Did _I_ claim that “it amounts to a positive assertion about the non-existence of God”? [/quote] Pretty much. > [@](#): > > Really? Yep. How is the atheist supposed to know how you make ontological distinctions between magical creatures? Demanding that the atheist define your hypotheis is logical nonsense. > [@](#): > > Are you saying that anyone can make a comparison between any two things without needing to justify that the two things are similar enough to warrant the comparison? I’m saying that anyone can ask what the difference is between two things. > [@](#): > > Some more of your “questions”? No, these are statements of fact. > [@](#): > > Okay, seriously, in your quote above, you say: “As a matter of **fact** ”; “\*\*all \*\* the classical proofs”; “\*\*anyone \*\* trained in theology”; “knows \*\*all \*\* the rebuttals”. This is true, Take a theology or a philosophy class. Or a science class. > [@](#): > > How do you get off making such sweeping assertions without providing any evidence, let alone proof? ACCORDING TO YOUR VERY OWN CITE (hey, these capitals are nice!) the “burden of proof is always on the person asserting something.” Something. Not just an assertion about a god-belief. Something. Is that clear? > > Please back up your assertions or shut up. > > And I mean that in the nicest possible way. 😃 [sigh] All you’re really doing is flaunting your own ignorance of some extremely well worn debates. There are three classical proofs for the existence of God. Anyone who takes a first year philosphy or theology class learns what they are and learns the rebuttals. The three classical arguments are as follows The Cosmological Argument (aka “First Cause”) The Teleological Argument (argument from perceived design) The Ontological Argument There are also some other arguments like the Moral Argument but the three I listed are the main ones. It would be exceedingly impractical for me to go through every conceivable argument for God and explain to you why they don’t work. would you be satisfied if I gave an abbreviated version of how the ones I listed can be dismantled? How many arguments do I have to rebut before you will be satisfied that I’ve supported my contention? I assure you that all of them fail to convince (and please don’t mistake that for an assertion that rebutting the persuasiveness of the arguments is an _ipso facto_ argument against the existence of God. The rebuttals just show that the proofs fail to prove anything) but if you’re aware of an argument which you think is especially effective, let me know what it is and I’ll be happy to show you why it fails miserably. Where should I start? ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/110 "2007-12-11T17:49:49Z")
> [@Malacandra](#): > > Well, my point exactly. The point is not that belief in YHWH is as well founded as belief in evolutionary theory; rather, that it would be a silly argument to claim that the only reason why anyone adhered to evolutionary theory would be that he did not understand why he rejected all other explanations for the origin of species. Let me know why this is intellectually dishonest. They’re two completely different things. And in fact, that would be a great argument. If someone didn’t understand why he should reject (for example) the old French theory I mentioned above, I would not place much trust in their understanding of current evolutionary theory. It’s intellectually dishonest because you and I both know that they’re _two completely different things_. Like I said, belief in any particular deity or pantheon is not based on the fact that that particular deity or pantheon can be proven any more convincingly than any other. Sure, belief in God or, say, Apollo, is more rational than joining a cargo cult–but the two are not more rational than each other. IOW, if you would argue that it is rational not to dismiss the existence of God offhand–which you are doing now, if I’m not mistaken–then you must accept that it is rational not to dismiss the existence of the Greek pantheon offhand, as well. In which case your acceptance of one and not the other is the product of faith and/or cultural factors, not the inherent superiority of one belief system over another. I reject your God for the same reasons that I reject the Greek pantheon; OTOH, the reasons you reject the theory of evolution by natural selection are not and can not be the same as the reasons you reject the French theory mentioned upthread. > [@Malacandra](#): > > More a prophet than a God, surely. We don’t _have_ prophets. We are _atheists_. Is this as difficult as you’re making it out to be? Charles Darwin was a genius and a giant in his field. So were Isaac Newton, Thelonius Monk, and Mark Twain. Darwin did not revolutionize scientific understanding by receiving divine knowledge that he alone was privy to; he was in the right place at the right time and with the right natural and learned abilities to advance the work of other humans, like Gregor Mendel.\* No atheist believes otherwise. Trying to jam us into your system of comprehending the world is not only insulting, but it belies an ignorance of basic theological concepts as well. \*I might have the wrong Gregor one here. Forgive me. It’s been a little while since I last took Biology. > [@Malacandra](#): > > And I suppose if there were fewer threads round here arguing that people who don’t believe in evolution should be treated as if they had no grasp of any science whatsoever, the idea that belief in evolution was the be-all and end-all to atheists would die out a lot quicker. Well, they apparently don’t. Evolution is a fact. It is directly observable. Natural selection is “only” a theory, but then again, so is relativity, and there’s not too much opposition to that, is there? Denying evolution is like denying gravity: you _can_, but if you do, you’ll be the one with pie on your face. > [@Malacandra](#): > > You see, this is the part that rather crosses the border to outright insult - arguing that I do not understand why I reject all other gods, and that if I did, I would naturally understand why you reject mine; and then you compound the offence by saying “Probably not”, which I suspect is not a criticism of the poor strength of the argument but an attempt to imply that I am deficient in reasoning skill. Well, it’s probably true of many/most Christians. I think that if you went around asking Christians why they don’t believe in Thor, you’ll walk a long way and waste a lot of breath before you get an answer that wouldn’t work just as well the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/111 "2007-12-11T18:34:29Z")
[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect] Well, it’s probably true of many/most Christians. I think that if you went around asking Christians why they don’t believe in Thor, you’ll walk a long way and waste a lot of breath before you get an answer that wouldn’t work just as well the other way around. [/QUOTE] I was under the impression that the answer you’d always get is “Because my god says Thor doesn’t exist”, which isn’t a particularly reversible argument. This is why the “you are almost as much an atheist as I am, just one god less” line never sounded any good to me; most theists do _not_ reject the other gods for the same reason that the atheist rejects them, so it’s not correct to say that the atheist need only examine their own beliefs about those other gods. They’d have to understand the _atheist’s_ beliefs about such gods, which is not something you’d expect them to intuitively able to do (which would deprive the atheist of an opportunity to mock the density of the theist for not having done it already). That’s why I prefer the “Why to competing theists believe/If they can be deluded, why can’t you be?” approach. I’m fairly sure it lacks the error of assuming shared perspective that the “almost an atheist” argument falls prey to. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/112 "2007-12-11T18:59:10Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I was under the impression that the answer you’d always get is “Because my god says Thor doesn’t exist”, which isn’t a particularly reversible argument. Thor might well have said that God didn’t exist, if God had been around in his time. The real meaning underlying that answer–“the two belief systems are mutually exclusive”–is perfectly reversible. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/113 "2007-12-11T19:26:46Z")
[QUOTE=MLS] An atheist friend, when challenged, asks “Do you believe in Zeus?” The answer, of course, is “No, certainly not!” Then she asks “How about Thor? How about Apollo?” Same response. To which she replies, “See, we’re just the same. I just believe in one less god than you do.” [/QUOTE] For Christians one god is way short. There is the father, son and holy ghost. 3 right there. You have the devil who apparently is as strong as gos and lives forever. He has his minions with invisible godlike abilities. God has a ton of angels flitting about invisibly and causing things to happen on earth. We have guardian angels for every person on earth. Christians believe in many gods. They try to define them away but invisible creatures of supernatural abilities are certainly not creatures of the earth. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/114 "2007-12-11T19:28:20Z")
There is something of a middle between a god and us mere mortals, you know. Supernatural beings aren’t automatically gods just because they have some power. ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/115 "2007-12-11T19:29:19Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] The Cosmological Argument (aka “First Cause”) The Teleological Argument (argument from perceived design) The Ontological Argument There are also some other arguments like the Moral Argument but the three I listed are the main ones. [/QUOTE] I don’t really have time to check it out before class, but I am certain that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy would have exhaustive discussions of these three arguments, written by professional philosophers and vetted by a team of editors. Perhaps \*\*Jesticulator \*\* can educate himself there before asking people around here to give him a crash course in Philosophy of Religion 101. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/116 "2007-12-11T19:41:43Z")
[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect] Thor might well have said that God didn’t exist, if God had been around in his time. The real meaning underlying that answer–“the two belief systems are mutually exclusive”–is perfectly reversible. [/QUOTE] Except that that’s not the “real meaning underlying that answer”, from their perspective as the one answering. To them, the real meaning is “There’s one god and he’s mine, and he told me that the Thor-worshippers are wrong”. They can’t reverse that because to them, there is no Thor to have told his worshippers anything. You have to be at least aware of the believer’s perspective in this, as this argument is clearly designed to be addressed directly to the believer. If they were going to be inclined to consider their religion and Thor-worship as comparable belief systems, you wouldn’t be having the discussion with them. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/117 "2007-12-11T19:49:24Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Except that that’s not the “real meaning underlying that answer”, from their perspective as the one answering. To them, the real meaning is “There’s one god and he’s mine, and he told me that the Thor-worshippers are wrong”. They can’t reverse that because to them, there is no Thor to have told his worshippers anything. Having been a practicing Orthodox Jew, I’m quite aware of the believer’s perspective. It’s not relevant whether or not they’re inclined to consider their religion and the worship of the Greek pantheon as comparable belief systems; they are. This is reality. If the Abrahamic believer chooses not to acknowledge that, that’s her prerogative, but it is still true that I reject her God for the same reason that I reject the Norse pantheon. It is also still true that the deeper meaning of her answer, whether she wants to believe it or not, is “the two belief systems are incompatible”, which, again, a believer in the Norse pantheon would just as surely say about belief in the Abrahamic God. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/118 "2007-12-11T20:03:07Z")
[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect] Having been a practicing Orthodox Jew, I’m quite aware of the believer’s perspective. It’s not relevant whether or not they’re inclined to consider their religion and the worship of the Greek pantheon as comparable belief systems; they are. This is reality. If the Abrahamic believer chooses not to acknowledge that, that’s her prerogative, but it is still true that I reject her God for the same reason that I reject the Norse pantheon. It is also still true that the deeper meaning of her answer, whether she wants to believe it or not, is “the two belief systems are incompatible”, which, again, a believer in the Norse pantheon would just as surely say about belief in the Abrahamic God. [/QUOTE] If walking up to religious-types and telling them “It’s not relevent whether or not you’re inclined to consider [concept that’s offensive to them, like God being imaginary]; it’s true. This is reality,” has been working for you, then fine, go for it! It sounds like a very efficient way to ‘convert’ them: You: Your beliefs are wrong. Theist: Okay, I’ll abandon them now. Thanks! More power to you! For myself, I’m not _nearly_ that persuasive, so I find myself forced to avoid arguments that _rely_ on the theist already having adopted an at least agnostic perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/119 "2007-12-11T20:50:49Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > If walking up to religious-types and telling them “It’s not relevent whether or not you’re inclined to consider [concept that’s offensive to them, like God being imaginary]; it’s true. This is reality,” has been working for you, then fine, go for it! It sounds like a very efficient way to ‘convert’ them: Who’s trying to convert them? The OP certainly appears to be, but I’m not. If I were to say that, I would say it with the purpose of making it clear why _I_ reject their God, and/or why they should respect atheists’ decisions about their own personal lives. If they’re offended, tough shit. I’m offended by things people say about my religious choices too, but I don’t cry about it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/120 "2007-12-11T21:17:06Z")
[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect] Who’s trying to convert them? The OP certainly appears to be, but I’m not. If I were to say that, I would say it with the purpose of making it clear why _I_ reject their God, and/or why they should respect atheists’ decisions about their own personal lives. If they’re offended, tough shit. I’m offended by things people say about my religious choices too, but I don’t cry about it. [/QUOTE] Conceded that your use of arguments might differ from the OP, but even so, isn’t it still inaccurate to say that if the theist understands his reasons for rejecting Thor, that he’ll under stand your reasons for rejecting his god? I mean, I _hope_ that you don’t reject Gods merely on some authority’s say-so. (Though this might explain why some theists seem to think that atheists only disbelieve in god because the arbitrary authority of “science” says to; some of us have been essentially _telling them_ that’s why we do it.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403.md?page=7)