# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/141 "2007-12-12T02:42:04Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] The second is **Czarcasm** ’s sarcastic response in post #50 [/quote] My cheerful analysis of sarcasm is that it’s not meant to be taken literally or subjected to minute analysis. > [@](#): > > Here’s one more, from post #64: > > > [@](#): > > > > Who said you don’t have a burden to prove that God exists? You have the burden BOTH to prove that God exists and to prove that a belief in God is more rational than a belief in the Easter Bunny. > > Go ahead and cheerfully analyze them. 🙂 Whoever wrote that remark is pointing out that the claim that there is a God is unsupported and thus has exactly as much gravity as a claim about the existence of the Easter Bunny, yet many adults believe the former and not the latter. I can’t say I see this as a claim to be supported by evidence - it just points out an inconsistency in the a claim of another. Valid replies include providing evidence that God _does_ exist (and thus has a stronger basis than the still-unproven Easter Bunny) or withdrawing the claim. As for CP’s statements about Santa Claus, I admit he’s citing a theist argument without actually quoting any specific theist. I don’t think he’s mischaracterizing common theist beliefs, though, so I remain unclear on the nature of your objection. ---
**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 12, 2007, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/142 "2007-12-12T02:44:46Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] Anyway, take a look at [Gödel’s Ontological Argument](http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html) and tell me whether everyone trained in theology or the clergy knows the rebuttal. (Not whether there is a rebuttal.) [/quote] Everyone trained in theology knows the Ontological argument and knows the rebuttals. Granted, some training may go no deeper than Anselm but the modal formulation (which has been kicked to death on this forum) is also fairly well known and would be covered by any serious course of study. > [@](#): > > Or, William Lane Craig’s [Teleological Argument](http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html), which I think is easier to refute. Or his analysis of the [Kalam Cosmological Argument](http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/kalam-oppy.html). > > I know that there are rebuttals, but I doubt that **all** theologians and clergy would find them “fairly easy”. And I think that many fundamentalist Christian theologians would say that there are no rebuttals. I assure you they can all be rebutted with next to zero effort and anybody who has any education in philosphy or theology is well aware of it. Your sophist attempts to atack my statements in their most hyper-literal sense are (typically for you, it seems), rhetorically immature, pointless and obfuscatory. > [@](#): > > My point was simply that Diogenes made an extreme claim and he made no attempt to meet the burden of proof for that claim. There was nothing extreme about my claim and if you had any education in philosophy or theology you would know that. If you’d like, I can show you how each classical proof is typically rebutted. You aseem to be afraid of actually having to engage in a real EoG debate, though, which is why you are employing your amateurish campaign of sophistry and fallacy. > [@](#): > > And, remember, I have never claimed that God exists. You don’t have to. It’s obvious that you believe it but that you’re terrified of actually having to defend it. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/143 "2007-12-12T03:15:53Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] If they believe in anything remotely like the classical God, another argument is the limitations imposed by the laws of physics. The don’t allow miracles; they impose all sorts of limitations, and most certainly don’t allow omnipotence or omniscience. [/QUOTE] Speaking as an agnostic/atheist, I think you’re wrong about this. We could live in a universe in which the laws of physics as we know them apply at all times. Or we could live in a universe in which the laws of physics as we know them apply at all times EXCEPT when God steps in and modifies any or all of them in any way shape or form he chooses with his omnipotent will. But God has not so chosen for the past 2000 years. Nothing in the second definition is self-contradictory, and no conceivable experiment could prove that we were in the 1st not the 2nd. The only way to choose between them is Occam’s Razor, which is back where we all started. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/144 "2007-12-12T09:28:02Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] I once ran across a list of contradictions in the omni-god (things such as whether an omniscient, omnipotent God is capable of choosing to do something other than what He knows He’s gonna do, and whether an eternal God has free will, that sort of thing), but my google skills aren’t up to snuff right now. Does anyone know where I can find such a list? Daniel [/QUOTE] Was it this [survey of incompatible properties](http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/philo/drange_1_2.htm) ? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/145 "2007-12-12T11:51:01Z")
[QUOTE=MrDibble] Was it this [survey of incompatible properties](http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/philo/drange_1_2.htm) ? [/QUOTE] That’s it–thanks! Some of them are weak, but others are pretty interesting arguments. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Jesticulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Jesticulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jesticulator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/146 "2007-12-12T12:57:47Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] As for CP’s statements about Santa Claus, I admit he’s citing a theist argument without actually quoting any specific theist. I don’t think he’s mischaracterizing common theist beliefs, though, so I remain unclear on the nature of your objection. [/QUOTE] Perhaps this post of mine will help clarify: [Post 91](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9259655&postcount=91). ---
**Author:** ![Jesticulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Jesticulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jesticulator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/147 "2007-12-12T13:05:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Would you mind telling us what you do claim, then? I’d like to know if we’re just spinning our wheels trying to argue you out of a position you don’t hold in the first place. Perhaps you should ask Diogenes. He knows that he knows, and he’s never wrong: > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It’s obvious that you believe it but that you’re terrified of actually having to defend it. Surprising similar to the theist claim that all atheists know in their heart that god exists but are afraid to admit it. I have already explicitly stated my position in another theist/atheist thread that included a number of the participants in this thread. Do I have to do so in every thread? And, a careful reading of my posts in this thread reveals what my position is. Please explain why it’s relevant. And, why are you “trying to argue [me] out of a position”? I didn’t realize that this thread was directly aimed at arguing someone out of a position. Anyway, I will answer your request to explicitly state my position in this thread, but under one condition: Diogenes must admit that he was wrong, and he must apologize to me for acting like a jerk. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/148 "2007-12-12T13:13:58Z")
As I understand it, if God exists, then there has to be a place where He exists,and so place had to precede God, unless God is Place. Monavis ---
**Author:** ![Jesticulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Jesticulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jesticulator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/149 "2007-12-12T13:37:05Z")
Hmm … I see that I stated \*two \* conditions … :o Anyway, the last time that I was subjected to so much browbeating was in a discussion with the apologist Robert Turkel, who is a lot a worse than a jerk. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/150 "2007-12-12T14:32:21Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] Perhaps you should ask Diogenes. He knows that he knows, and he’s never wrong:Surprising similar to the theist claim that all atheists know in their heart that god exists but are afraid to admit it. I have already explicitly stated my position in another theist/atheist thread that included a number of the participants in this thread. Do I have to do so in every thread? And, a careful reading of my posts in this thread reveals what my position is. Please explain why it’s relevant. And, why are you “trying to argue [me] out of a position”? I didn’t realize that this thread was directly aimed at arguing someone out of a position. Anyway, I will answer your request to explicitly state my position in this thread, but under one condition: Diogenes must admit that he was wrong, and he must apologize to me for acting like a jerk. [/QUOTE] So we have to jump through hoops to get a direct answer? You don’t want to dabate-you want to play games, and I’m not in a game playing mood right now. From what position are you arguing from? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/151 "2007-12-12T14:58:20Z")
[QUOTE=Cosmic Relief] … Perhaps the matter is better stated thusly: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” (attributed to someone named Stephen Roberts). [/QUOTE] Stephen Roberts’ [site](http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.php) about the quote. > [@](#): > > … I have no doubt that others have said similar things throughout time (afterall, its not like the general concept of atheism was made up by me). But I didn’t know about any of the others when I first penned the quote (remember this was 94-95, there was no wikipedia or google to look things up with). > > I just had the luck to put together the phrase right at the dawn of the modern Internet age. 🙂 CMC +fnord! ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/152 "2007-12-12T15:02:23Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] My cheerful analysis of sarcasm is that it’s not meant to be taken literally or subjected to minute analysis. Whoever wrote that remark is pointing out that the claim that there is a God is unsupported and thus has exactly as much gravity as a claim about the existence of the Easter Bunny, yet many adults believe the former and not the latter. I can’t say I see this as a claim to be supported by evidence - it just points out an inconsistency in the a claim of another. Valid replies include providing evidence that God _does_ exist (and thus has a stronger basis than the still-unproven Easter Bunny) or withdrawing the claim. As for CP’s statements about Santa Claus, I admit he’s citing a theist argument without actually quoting any specific theist. I don’t think he’s mischaracterizing common theist beliefs, though, so I remain unclear on the nature of your objection. [/QUOTE] I myself do not believe in the existence of any supernatural beings, but I have never understood the attractions of using a comparison of god(s) to the Easter Bunny, Flying Spagetti monster, magic unicorns, etc. What is the point of such a comparison? It will not convince a theist that he or she is incorrect; it will only convince a theist that he or she is arguing with someone who thinks he or she is a moron, which is usually not the first step in convincing someone they are wrong, or at least that they should seriously consider the validity of the other side. Sadly, and one of the reasons I don’t participate much in these arguments, the religious position tends to be attacked on this board essentially with a loud chorus of “you are a moron” expressed in various ways by many people. In keeping with the OP, I’d say that outside of the confines of a message board this isn’t the best or most convincing form of argument, since even people with the most open of minds tend to react negatively to being characterized as a moron. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/153 "2007-12-12T15:56:00Z")
At this point in the thread I would like to recommend [Over Three Hundred Proofs of God’s Existence.](http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm) Most of them are meant for comedic effect, although I have seen some used on this very board. For example… > [@](#): > > MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT > (1) God is either necessary or unnecessary. > (2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary. > (3) Therefore, God exists. > [@](#): > > ARGUMENT FROM INFINITE REGRESS > (1) Ask Atheists what caused the Big Bang. > (2) Regardless of their answer, ask how they know this. > (3) Continue process until the Atheist admits he doesn’t know the answer to one of your questions. > (4) You win! > (5) Therefore, God exists. > [@](#): > > ARGUMENT FROM CREATIVE INTERPRETATION > (1) God is: > (a) The feeling you have when you look at a newborn baby. > (b) The love of a mother for her child. > (c) That little still voice in your heart. > (d) Humankind’s potential to overcome their difficulties. > (e) How I feel when I look at a sunset. > (f) The taste of ice cream on a hot day. > (2) Therefore, God exists. > [@](#): > > ARGUMENT FROM DIVINE ECONOMICS > (1) Protestant Christian nations are rich. > (2) Therefore, God exists. > [@](#): > > ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL SANITY > (1) I’ve had religious experiences that can’t be explained unless I’m insane or God exists. > (2) Therefore, God exists. > [@](#): > > ARGUMENT FROM POSTMODERNISM > (1) I’m going to prove to you that God exists. > (2) [Insert any of the other arguments on this page in here.] > (3) [Atheist refutes argument.] > (4) I cannot prove there is a God any more than anyone of us can prove we really exist in a tangible world. > (5) Therefore, God exists. > [@](#): > > ARGUMENT FROM AGNOSTICISM > (1) I don’t know and you don’t know either. > (2) Therefore, God exists. > [@](#): > > ARGUMENT FROM ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE (I) > (1) I once experienced something I can’t explain. > (2) [Atheists offer several possible, natural explanations.] > (3) You’re just guessing! I was there. > (4) Therefore, God exists. > [@](#): > > REID’S ARGUMENT > (1) You assume that your senses are reliable even though you can’t prove it. > (2) That means I get to assume anything I want. > (3) Therefore, God exists. > [@](#): > > ARGUMENT FROM WE ALL GOT FAITH > (1) We all believe in something. > (2) Therefore we all have faith. > (3) My faith in God is no different from your faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. > (4) Therefore, God exists. > [@](#): > > METACROCK’S ARGUMENT FOR GOD (II) > (1) I created the term “arbitrary necessity”. > (2) It is a golden principle and applies to whatever I say it does. > (3) I say an eternal universe is an arbitrary necessity. > (4) Therefore, God exists. YMMV. ---
**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 12, 2007, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/154 "2007-12-12T16:04:40Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] Perhaps you should ask Diogenes. He knows that he knows, and he’s never wrong:Surprising similar to the theist claim that all atheists know in their heart that god exists but are afraid to admit it. [/quote] No, it’s just a lot of experience with these kinds of debates (I moderate on an atheist message board so I argue with a lot of theists. Your pattern of trying to reverse burdens of proof and obfuscate debates with pointless semantic pedantry is something I’ve seen a lot from theists. If I got you wrong, it’s only because you argue exactly like a fundy. > [@](#): > > I have already explicitly stated my position in another theist/atheist thread that included a number of the participants in this thread. Do I have to do so in every thread? Not everybody reads or remembers every post. It is generally considered polite to let people knpw where you’re coming from in a debate like this > [@](#): > > Please explain why it’s relevant. Because it’s a debate. It’s only polite to let people know what side you’re on. > [@](#): > > And, why are you “trying to argue [me] out of a position”? I didn’t realize that this thread was directly aimed at arguing someone out of a position. I haven’t tried to argue you out of anything. I’ve only tried to help you out and let you know how bad your logic and your rhetoric are. > [@](#): > > Anyway, I will answer your request to explicitly state my position in this thread, but under one condition: Diogenes must admit that he was wrong, and he must apologize to me for acting like a jerk. I searched your post history and you claim you’re not a theist. I got you wrong only because your debate style is so fallacious and off point and digressive that you looked just like a fundy. Don’t hold your breath for an apology. I haven’t been unfair to you. > [@](#): > > Anyway, the last time that I was subjected to so much browbeating was in a discussion with the apologist Robert Turkel, who is a lot a worse than a jerk. Now THATS something we can agree on. 🙂 (For those who don’t know, Turkel is the real name of internet apologist, J.P. Holding, a particularly nasty personality) ---
**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 12, 2007, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/155 "2007-12-12T16:25:57Z")
> [@](#): > > METACROCK’S ARGUMENT FOR GOD (II) > (1) I created the term “arbitrary necessity”. > (2) It is a golden principle and applies to whatever I say it does. > (3) I say an eternal universe is an arbitrary necessity. > (4) Therefore, God exists. Heh. I’ve debated with Metacrock. He was singularly incoherent as both a debater and typist. I remember that “aribitary necessity” thing of his. He was pretty amusing. Temperamental but really sort of toothless. Nowhere near as big a jerk as Turkel. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/156 "2007-12-12T17:13:53Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] Perhaps this post of mine will help clarify: [Post 91](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9259655&postcount=91). [/QUOTe] I’m afraid it doesn’t, so I’ll stop requesting clarification. > [@](#): > > Diogenes must admit that he was wrong, and he must apologize to me for acting like a jerk. Well, that _proves_ you’re a theist, praying for miracles and all. 😃 > [@Malthus](#): > > I myself do not believe in the existence of any supernatural beings, but I have never understood the attractions of using a comparison of god(s) to the Easter Bunny, Flying Spagetti monster, magic unicorns, etc. > > What is the point of such a comparison? It will not convince a theist that he or she is incorrect; it will only convince a theist that he or she is arguing with someone who thinks he or she is a moron, which is usually not the first step in convincing someone they are wrong, or at least that they should seriously consider the validity of the other side. I’m not after the theist, though. I’m after the people watching the debate who are not yet firmly decided on theism or atheism, in hopes of getting them to see the flaws in the former and seriously consider the latter. The advantage of using an Easter Bunny analogy is that it’s something a Christian child might have once wholly believed in but in adulthood came to understand was fake. Comparing it to God might cause that person to question how he came to believe in that, too - for no other reason than he was _told_ in childhood to believe it. I have no illusions that a determined theist will suddenly “click”. I’m hoping for the reader who has a bit of doubt, magnified when he sees that the theist cannot defend belief in God with any greater evidence than the myths fed to children about Easter bunnies. If the theist feels insulted by the process, that’s not my concern. My position is the theist is spreading lies and since I can’t stop him, I can do my part to make the lies appear less attractive. I could be oblique and indirect about this in the hopes of not hurting anyone’s feelings, but what’s the point? I’m up against a religion industry that is well-organized, long-established, can freely sell directly to children and is promoting a product that is very seductive. Why should I deny myself an important and useful tool (ridicule) and give them an even _greater_ advantage? ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/157 "2007-12-12T17:46:31Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] What is the point of such a comparison? It will not convince a theist that he or she is incorrect; it will only convince a theist that he or she is arguing with someone who thinks he or she is a moron, which is usually not the first step in convincing someone they are wrong, or at least that they should seriously consider the validity of the other side. [/QUOTE] I consider the goal of such comparisons to the get the person thinking. If they actually start thinking about what they believe and why, regardless of their response, then you’ve helped them take a step forward. Theistic belief cannot be overcome all in one go, you have to help them past the ‘this belief is important to my life and I need it’ point. Showing them that the reasons they use to justify that belief are silly is one way to do this, even if it does sound insulting. That’s the problem with theistic belief, it has a ‘get out of reason free’ card. Someone thinks that there are invisible pink unicorns in their back yard and they talk to them? Insane. Someone thinks there are invisible people in the sky and they talk to them? Devout & moral individual. Pointing out that religious belief is or can be silly is ‘bad’, unless it’s not their religion. > [@](#): > > Sadly, and one of the reasons I don’t participate much in these arguments, the religious position tends to be attacked on this board essentially with a loud chorus of “you are a moron” expressed in various ways by many people. In keeping with the OP, I’d say that outside of the confines of a message board this isn’t the best or most convincing form of argument, since even people with the most open of minds tend to react negatively to being characterized as a moron. Well, I think the main problem here is that a lot of us have heard just about all the arguments before, and tend to skip to the big conclusion. No, it’s not necessarily good, but it saves time. When you’re confronted with someone who thinks that ‘I feel it’ is rock solid proof, and expects you to think the same thing, it’s difficult to stay nonconfrontational about it. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/158 "2007-12-12T18:46:21Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] I’m afraid it doesn’t, so I’ll stop requesting clarification.Well, that _proves_ you’re a theist, praying for miracles and all. 😃 I’m not after the theist, though. I’m after the people watching the debate who are not yet firmly decided on theism or atheism, in hopes of getting them to see the flaws in the former and seriously consider the latter. The advantage of using an Easter Bunny analogy is that it’s something a Christian child might have once wholly believed in but in adulthood came to understand was fake. Comparing it to God might cause that person to question how he came to believe in that, too - for no other reason than he was _told_ in childhood to believe it. I have no illusions that a determined theist will suddenly “click”. I’m hoping for the reader who has a bit of doubt, magnified when he sees that the theist cannot defend belief in God with any greater evidence than the myths fed to children about Easter bunnies. If the theist feels insulted by the process, that’s not my concern. My position is the theist is spreading lies and since I can’t stop him, I can do my part to make the lies appear less attractive. I could be oblique and indirect about this in the hopes of not hurting anyone’s feelings, but what’s the point? I’m up against a religion industry that is well-organized, long-established, can freely sell directly to children and is promoting a product that is very seductive. Why should I deny myself an important and useful tool (ridicule) and give them an even _greater_ advantage? [/QUOTE] My point is that it is an ineffective tool. It infantilizes the user, not the receipient of the ridicule. It also debases the debate. I am not of the opinion that all those who believe in a diety are part of some sinister “religion industry”, or are “liars”. I have more respect for my opponents than that. Underestimating the opposition and resorting to tactics of ridicule, demonization and abuse - is that _really_ the best way to convince the uncommitted? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/159 "2007-12-12T18:58:27Z")
[QUOTE=Malthus] Underestimating the opposition and resorting to tactics of ridicule, demonization and abuse - is that _really_ the best way to convince the uncommitted? [/QUOTE] I like to think we’re a bit more subtle than that but by all means, propose alternate strategies. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/160 "2007-12-12T19:05:08Z")
[QUOTE=hotflungwok] I consider the goal of such comparisons to the get the person thinking. If they actually start thinking about what they believe and why, regardless of their response, then you’ve helped them take a step forward. Theistic belief cannot be overcome all in one go, you have to help them past the ‘this belief is important to my life and I need it’ point. Showing them that the reasons they use to justify that belief are silly is one way to do this, even if it does sound insulting. That’s the problem with theistic belief, it has a ‘get out of reason free’ card. Someone thinks that there are invisible pink unicorns in their back yard and they talk to them? Insane. Someone thinks there are invisible people in the sky and they talk to them? Devout & moral individual. Pointing out that religious belief is or can be silly is ‘bad’, unless it’s not their religion. Well, I think the main problem here is that a lot of us have heard just about all the arguments before, and tend to skip to the big conclusion. No, it’s not necessarily good, but it saves time. When you’re confronted with someone who thinks that ‘I feel it’ is rock solid proof, and expects you to think the same thing, it’s difficult to stay nonconfrontational about it. [/QUOTE] My point is that it does not work that way, any more than point-blank telling anyone that anything they believe in strongly is “silly” is likely to be an effective argument. It will not I think have the benefits you are assuming. Telling someone that their beliefs are “silly” does not generally make them re-think their beliefs. It is a put-down, plain and simple. Moreover, I do not myself assume that “the big conclusion” is that those who are religious are, in fact, morons. Many religious people have been (and are) more intelligent than I am. Many are good and honest people. A better and more convincing and constructive form of argument is to assume this to be true of those you are arguing with. For example, when I am called upon to argue with a theist, I generally take the tack of trying to pin them down as to what they mean by “faith”. Usually, this means in the end some sort of emotional and intuitive rather than rational way of “knowing”. Then, one can point out that the two realms - emotion/intuition and reason - need not be in conflict; whether dinosaurs evolved lies within the realm or reason, it cannot be “known” emotionally/inuitively; similarly, (for example) whether Jesus is your personal saviour can only be known emotionally/intuitively, it is not a matter that can be proved or disproved by reason. This creates some common ground, a basis for moving forward. After all, I am fundamentally uninterested in whether or not someone believes in Jesus as their personal saviour - but I am very interested in preventing those who do from interfering with (say) the teaching of evolution. The idea in my mind is not to _convert_ anyone, but rather, to gradually confine religion to its proper sphere - of a personal matter of emotional comfort. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403.md?page=9)