SDMB Atheists..point me in the direction of the most convincing arguments for Atheism

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Malthus

A better and more convincing and constructive form of argument…

Is it, though? It may spare the theist’s feelings and make you feel like less of a jerk, but how effective is this at countering theism?

And I’d like to reiterate that it’s not the theist himself I’m trying to convince in debates like this. I have no illusions about “turning” Shodan or lekatt. My idea of success (well, beyond the immediate entertainment value of the process) is presenting atheism convincingly to readers who have started to suspect theism has flaws and can begin easing away from it.

[Malthus]

@Bryan Ekers

Is it, though? It may spare the theist’s feelings and make you feel like less of a jerk, but how effective is this at countering theism?

And I’d like to reiterate that it’s not the theist himself I’m trying to convince in debates like this. I have no illusions about “turning” Shodan or lekatt. My idea of success (well, beyond the immediate entertainment value of the process) is presenting atheism convincingly to readers who have started to suspect theism has flaws and can begin easing away from it.

I suspect it is more effective, and in a better way, than simply using ridicule and abuse.

Even if those tactics work, they work for the wrong reasons - a person who can be convinced by ridicule and abuse, how sincere is that conviction? Someone else willing to be a bigger abusive jerk will re-convince them in no time.

In a community such as an internet board, no doubt shouting down one’s opponents is reasonably “effective” - if you are in the majority, as athiests are here. This is however nothing more than the operation of peer pressure. Eventually no-one will disagree with the majority line, because no-one wants to be the subject of continuous abuse and ridicule.

But the “effectiveness” of such a tactic has nothing at all to do with the fundamental excellence or correctness of the position stated. Which is my beef with using that tactic in this case. When you are in fact in the right, why use the same shoddy tactics that work for any majoritarian consensus?

[begbert2]

@Malthus

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?

Stepping back a moment to this - what’s debasing or infantilizing about seriously comparing belief in a given God to belief in the easter bunny?

If the answer is “because the easter bunny doesn’t exist” (and that’s the only explanation that I can think of that applies), then what you’re actually dealing with is a person who is offended at the mere thought that their god might not exist. If this is the case, then it is impossible to discuss the subject without offending them. The only way to “respect” them is to concede the argument. Is that what you’re proposing we do?

Conceded that often the presentation of ideas is less than gentle, but the real point of analogizing God to the easter bunny, the FSM, and invisible unicorns and dragons in living rooms or garages is a valid one: that for all the arguments and rationalizations and apologetics, Theists are still claiming the existince of something for which no actual evidence exists. Once you get past the special pleading, what is the difference between believing in God and believing that there’s an undetectable unicorn in the room? Theists claim that believing in God is sensible. These comparisons demonstrate that they need to provide more evidence than their say-so if they really want us to buy their line, since it’s a pretty tall tale by any measure.

That’s the point of such arguments. Not to win by mockery and browbeating.

I feel that people who are so hypersensitive about the mere thought that they might be wrong about their beliefs that they refuse to even think about the alternate possibility have crossed the line beyond which they are reacting unreasonably to reasonable propositions. So in my opinion, if they’re so sensitive that they can’t handle the mere thought of comparisons of their God with Santa Claus, then they are asking to be offended, and I don’t feel guilty for granting their wish.

[Malthus]

@begbert2

Stepping back a moment to this - what’s debasing or infantilizing about seriously comparing belief in a given God to belief in the easter bunny?

If the answer is “because the easter bunny doesn’t exist” (and that’s the only explanation that I can think of that applies), then what you’re actually dealing with is a person who is offended at the mere thought that their god might not exist. If this is the case, then it is impossible to discuss the subject without offending them. The only way to “respect” them is to concede the argument. Is that what you’re proposing we do?

Conceded that often the presentation of ideas is less than gentle, but the real point of analogizing God to the easter bunny, the FSM, and invisible unicorns and dragons in living rooms or garages is a valid one: that for all the arguments and rationalizations and apologetics, Theists are still claiming the existince of something for which no actual evidence exists. Once you get past the special pleading, what is the difference between believing in God and believing that there’s an undetectable unicorn in the room? Theists claim that believing in God is sensible. These comparisons demonstrate that they need to provide more evidence than their say-so if they really want us to buy their line, since it’s a pretty tall tale by any measure.

That’s the point of such arguments. Not to win by mockery and browbeating.

I feel that people who are so hypersensitive about the mere thought that they might be wrong about their beliefs that they refuse to even think about the alternate possibility have crossed the line beyond which they are reacting unreasonably to reasonable propositions. So in my opinion, if they’re so sensitive that they can’t handle the mere thought of comparisons of their God with Santa Claus, then they are asking to be offended, and I don’t feel guilty for granting their wish.

I don’t agree.

The point of such a comparison is, essentially, mockery. As in, ‘your belief is as silly and childish as belief in the tooth fairy’. The ‘silly and childish’ part is not stated (or at least not generally stated) but is quite obviously implied by such a comparison, and is I would think intended; hence using as the object of comparison things only a young child could believe were literally true (Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, magic unicorns, etc.). Certainly it sounds that way to this non-theist.

The offense someone would feel at this argument is not the sophisticated type of offense felt at a serious challenge to their notions, it is the quite normal reaction to a school-yard style taunt. It isn’t “unreasonable” to be offended by the fact that someone is deliberately giving offence. The source of the offence is not something to do with the nature of extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, but rather that, in this argument, someone is in effect calling one silly and childish.

I say this not to induce guilt in those doing the taunting, but merely in the interests of explaining why it isn’t a particularly effective or useful strategy in convincing others.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Malthus

I suspect it is more effective, and in a better way, than simply using ridicule and abuse.

Even if those tactics work, they work for the wrong reasons - a person who can be convinced by ridicule and abuse, how sincere is that conviction? Someone else willing to be a bigger abusive jerk will re-convince them in no time.

Should I restate, again, that the target of the ridicule isn’t the person I’m trying to convince?

In a community such as an internet board, no doubt shouting down one’s opponents is reasonably “effective” - if you are in the majority, as athiests are here. This is however nothing more than the operation of peer pressure. Eventually no-one will disagree with the majority line, because no-one wants to be the subject of continuous abuse and ridicule.

I don’t know that atheists are the majority here, but it would be easy to assume so if one only checked atheism-themed threads. I disagree with your use of “continuous”, too, as though theists were being chased and harassed through non-religion threads What next, we’re accused of shoving atheism down someone’s throat?

But the “effectiveness” of such a tactic has nothing at all to do with the fundamental excellence or correctness of the position stated. Which is my beef with using that tactic in this case. When you are in fact in the right, why use the same shoddy tactics that work for any majoritarian consensus?

Because they work, at least some of the time (again, at influencing people watching the ridicule rather then being subjected to it). And they’re fun. Of course, you’re free to take the kindler, gentler route. Good luck with that. Meantime, I’ll respond to the people who link atheism with kitten-torture.

[Malthus]

@Bryan Ekers

Should I restate, again, that the target of the ridicule isn’t the person I’m trying to convince?

Heh, at least you agree it is ridicule.

I don’t know that atheists are the majority here, but it would be easy to assume so if one only checked atheism-themed threads. I disagree with your use of “continuous”, too, as though theists were being chased and harassed through non-religion threads What next, we’re accused of shoving atheism down someone’s throat?

No, by “here” I mean “in threads discussing religion”.

Because they work, at least some of the time (again, at influencing people watching the ridicule rather then being subjected to it). And they’re fun. Of course, you’re free to take the kindler, gentler route. Good luck with that. Meantime, I’ll respond to the people who link atheism with kitten-torture.

Well, can’t argue with the “fun” part. Not my notion of fun, but I’ll not rain on your parade.

My point is that anyone who is influenced by ridicule is basically going to agree with the majority, whatever they happen to believe.

[begbert2]

@Malthus

I don’t agree.

The point of such a comparison is, essentially, mockery. As in, ‘your belief is as silly and childish as belief in the tooth fairy’. The ‘silly and childish’ part is not stated (or at least not generally stated) but is quite obviously implied by such a comparison, and is I would think intended; hence using as the object of comparison things only a young child could believe were literally true (Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, magic unicorns, etc.). Certainly it sounds that way to this non-theist.

The offense someone would feel at this argument is not the sophisticated type of offense felt at a serious challenge to their notions, it is the quite normal reaction to a school-yard style taunt. It isn’t “unreasonable” to be offended by the fact that someone is deliberately giving offence. The source of the offence is not something to do with the nature of extraordinary proof for extraordinary claims, but rather that, in this argument, someone is in effect calling one silly and childish.

I say this not to induce guilt in those doing the taunting, but merely in the interests of explaining why it isn’t a particularly effective or useful strategy in convincing others.

Contrary to your assertion, the point of such a comparison depends on the person making the argument. Some people use it to mock, but it can be used as a valid comparison. Most of the time the offense raised seems artificial anyway, as the theist retreats behind the shield of exaggerated offense to avoid having to face the childishness of their own beliefs. But frankly, I’m tired of discussing this with you.

ANY method of debating theists about their religion is eventually going to offend them, unless they’re so reasonable that the Santa argument wouldn’t have offended them either, or unless you pull your punches so much that they never have to even defend or support their own position. The offense is a natural part of the defense that one raises for their closely held beliefs. If you’re not willing to raise their defenses, then don’t even bother broaching the subject to them.

(That’s the advantage of debating the theist next to them, really. The observer hears the arguments but as he’s not the one being “attacked”, is not as likely to become angry and offended.)

@Malthus

My point is that anyone who is influenced by ridicule is basically going to agree with the majority, whatever they happen to believe.

-And I don’t agree with that at all.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

My favorite argument for God’s existence:

1. “If God did not exist, it would be necessary for man to invent Him.”–Voltaire
2. Clearly, it is not necessary for man to invent God.
3. Therefore, God exists.

Daniel

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Malthus

Heh, at least you agree it is ridicule.

Yes, but it’s ridicule with a purpose.

No, by “here” I mean “in threads discussing religion”.

Well, I think the confusion is understandable, since your “here” was preceded by “In a community such as an internet board”.

My point is that anyone who is influenced by ridicule is basically going to agree with the majority, whatever they happen to believe.

I disagree, and your notion is barely removed from talking about how “the masses” have to be saved from themselves. Sure, there are spineless individuals who will conform to whoever’s talking at the moment. I’m personally hoping religion will fade so at least we don’t keep creating more of these unfortunates in childhood.

[Malthus]

@begbert2

Contrary to your assertion, the point of such a comparison depends on the person making the argument. Some people use it to mock, but it can be used as a valid comparison. Most of the time the offense raised seems artificial anyway, as the theist retreats behind the shield of exaggerated offense to avoid having to face the childishness of their own beliefs.

There again with the “childishness”. How is calling someone’s cherished beliefs “childish” not mockery?

But frankly, I’m tired of discussing this with you.

Okay.

ANY method of debating theists about their religion is eventually going to offend them, unless they’re so reasonable that the Santa argument wouldn’t have offended them either, or unless you pull your punches so much that they never have to even defend or support their own position. The offense is a natural part of the defense that one raises for their closely held beliefs. If you’re not willing to raise their defenses, then don’t even bother broaching the subject to them.

(That’s the advantage of debating the theist next to them, really. The observer hears the arguments but as he’s not the one being “attacked”, is not as likely to become angry and offended.)

-And I don’t agree with that at all.

Don’t agree. While it is true that there are some hot-headed theists who cannot politely debate their beliefs, I’ve had many stimulating arguments with some very intelligent theists in which neither of us ended up offended at the other.

Perhaps the fact that you are evidently comming from the perspective that your debating partner’s beliefs are “childish” explains why every debate you have with theists ends in offense? Just a suggestion for consideration.

[Malthus]

@Bryan Ekers

Yes, but it’s ridicule with a purpose.

Which is where I started from. I assert that the method does not advance the purpose.

Well, I think the confusion is understandable, since your “here” was preceded by “In a community such as an internet board”.

Fair enough; I have clarified.

I disagree, and your notion is barely removed from talking about how “the masses” have to be saved from themselves. Sure, there are spineless individuals who will conform to whoever’s talking at the moment. I’m personally hoping religion will fade so at least we don’t keep creating more of these unfortunates in childhood.

Hey, I’m not a theist. I am merely stating that one particular argument tactic isn’t useful or effective. How is that in any way similar to stating that the masses have to be saved from themselves?

Moreover, I’m under no illusions that religion is the only thing that causes conformity.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Malthus

I am merely stating that one particular argument tactic isn’t useful or effective.

And you’ve stated this several times, but I don’t see any evidence in support.

How is that in any way similar to stating that the masses have to be saved from themselves?

Aren’t the masses made up of “anyones” who were influenced to agree with the majority?

[begbert2]

@Malthus

There again with the “childishness”. How is calling someone’s cherished beliefs “childish” not mockery?

When it’s descriptive? Is being called “small” mockery? Must I describe things as being ‘spatially challenged’ instead?

And I didn’t think I was talking to a theist anyway, so who was I going to offend?

@Malthus

Don’t agree. While it is true that there are some hot-headed theists who cannot politely debate their beliefs, I’ve had many stimulating arguments with some very intelligent theists in which neither of us ended up offended at the other.

Oh, sure, there are several of them who like a detacvhed intellectual discussion. Now, how many of those thesists changed their own religious views one whit as a result of these polite discussions?

@Malthus

Perhaps the fact that you are evidently comming from the perspective that your debating partner’s beliefs are “childish” explains why every debate you have with theists ends in offense? Just a suggestion for consideration.

Alright, I’ve considered it. That’s not why. (Heck, they don’t always end in offense, either. Sometimes we just run out of time. Not that I even use arguments from analogy as my primary mode of argument anyway.)

[Malthus]

@begbert2

When it’s descriptive? Is being called “small” mockery? Must I describe things as being ‘spatially challenged’ instead?

And I didn’t think I was talking to a theist anyway, so who was I going to offend?

You aren’t offending me, I am simply pointing out that you evidently strongly believe that the beliefs of theists are “childish” and are quite willing to label them as such. To my mind, that is mockery.

“Childish” is a value judgment and is in no way equivilant to calling something “small”.

Oh, sure, there are several of them who like a detacvhed intellectual discussion. Now, how many of those thesists changed their own religious views one whit as a result of these polite discussions?

I dunno, honestly. I’m willing to bet ‘more than are willing to change their beliefs as a result of being insulted to their face’, but proof either way is lacking.

I simply analogize thusly: would I change any of my cherished beliefs as a result of being mocked offhandedly by someone who evidently considers me a childish moron for holding them?

Alright, I’ve considered it. That’s not why. (Heck, they don’t always end in offense, either. Sometimes we just run out of time. Not that I even use arguments from analogy as my primary mode of argument anyway.)

Okay.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@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.

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” … .

I always thought the reason the comparison is made at all is that religion tends to assume all kinds of special privileges about what you can say about their god(s) in the name of respect etc and that other, obviously made-up beings do not carry the same baggage and so can be easier be reasoned about without giving offense.

In other words, the comparison is made to avoid offending the precious deity, while still making the silliness of the whole belief system obvious.

[begbert2]

@Malthus

You aren’t offending me, I am simply pointing out that you evidently strongly believe that the beliefs of theists are “childish” and are quite willing to label them as such. To my mind, that is mockery.

“Childish” is a value judgment and is in no way equivilant to calling something “small”.

Then Jesus was totally trash-talking his followers in Matthew 18:2-4.

@Malthus

I dunno, honestly. I’m willing to bet ‘more than are willing to change their beliefs as a result of being insulted to their face’, but proof either way is lacking.

I simply analogize thusly: would I change any of my cherished beliefs as a result of being mocked offhandedly by someone who evidently considers me a childish moron for holding them?

There’s more substance to the analogical arguments than just mockery, though. If the theist manages to retain enough of the argument to remember its actual point, over the horrendus insult of it being implied that they’re believing the way Jesus wants them to, then they might eventually actually think about the argument’s actual point, which might put the first chink into their armor of unquestioned unsubstantiated belief.

That’s the theory, anyway; I’ve never personally seen any religious person ever change their mind on anything even vaguely religious, ever, for any reason. However, I will continue to maintain that there’s a difference between presenting analogical arguments and standing there hurling insults and curses at them.

[Valteron]

I believe most of the atheists on this board are quite correct in not falling into the trap of trying to prove there is no God, because it is up to those who say there is to prove it.

That said, if you are seriously looking into atheism, I might mention an excellent anthology titled “The Portable Atheist – Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever”.

Compiled by Christopher Hitchens (author of the best-selling God is Not Great) it is a collection of selected writings of some 50 famous non-believers from the Roman Lucretius through Spinoza, Hobbes, Anatole France, H.P. Lovecraft, Mark Twain, right up to modern thinkers who have abandoned their belief in God. It includes not only western writers but also ex-Muslims like Salmon Rushdie, and Ibn Warraq (author of “Why I am not a Muslim”). Needless to say, Rushdie and Warraq (an assumed name) live in fear of their lives because of religious fanatics. Especially touching is the passage by Ayan Hirsi Ali, the courageous ex-Muslim woman who wrote “Infidel”, who recounts the day she stood at the mirror and said in her own Somali language “I do not believe in God”.

The closest thing a can give you as a short argument FOR atheism, although it is not up to atheists to prove something does not exist, is this quote from Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time:
“(Because of the quantum theory of gravity,). . . . .one could say: ‘The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.’ The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created or destroyed. It would just be.”

Now then, while I would never put myself on a level with Hawking, I would add from my simpler viewpoint:

Theists believe in a material universe that was created by an uncreated God who has always existed.

As an atheist, I believe in an uncreated material universe that has always existed. I do not have to prove the material universe exists. It is right there in front of you in the form of your computer screen, the stars in the sky and he Earth under your feet.

Scientists tell us matter cannot be created or destroyed. Why is there omething rather than nothing? Because there cannot be nothing. There must be something and that something is the universe. It cannot NOT exist.

For the rest, it is all a matter of the material universe following natural rules, formation of planets, nuclear fusion creationg suns that give off energy, amino acids, life, evolution, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Hitler, yadda yadda.

No Gods need apply!

[Jesticulator]

@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.

Perhaps, my first post would have a received a better reception if I had started it the same way that you did.

@Bryan Ekers

Why should I deny myself an important and useful tool (ridicule) and give them an even greater advantage?

@begbert2

Stepping back a moment to this - what’s debasing or infantilizing about seriously comparing belief in a given God to belief in the easter bunny?
…
if they’re so sensitive that they can’t handle the mere thought of comparisons of their God with Santa Claus, then they are asking to be offended, and I don’t feel guilty for granting their wish.

@Bryan Ekers

Of course, you’re free to take the kindler, gentler route. Good luck with that.

@begbert2

Contrary to your assertion, the point of such a comparison depends on the person making the argument. Some people use it to mock, but it can be used as a valid comparison. Most of the time the offense raised seems artificial anyway, as the theist retreats behind the shield of exaggerated offense to avoid having to face the childishness of their own beliefs.

@Superfluous Parentheses

In other words, the comparison is made to avoid offending the precious deity, while still making the silliness of the whole belief system obvious.

Perhaps not. :dubious:

[Czarcasm]

@Jesticulator

Perhaps, my first post would have a received a better reception if I had started it the same way that you did. Perhaps not. :dubious:

As a theist, are you offended?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Czarcasm

As a theist, are you offended?

Careful, we haven’t established that he is a theist. It’s apparently irrelevant.