# The Falsity of Religion: Twelve Indisputable Arguments **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2004, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868 "2004-03-28T04:39:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mascaroni](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dc4da7/32.png) [@mascaroni](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mascaroni)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/21 "2004-03-28T12:50:41Z")
It’s impossible to say that God does not exist. But it’s possible to say that, if he/she/it does exist then he/she/it is a bit err… eccentric to say the least… God made man in his own image and placed him on the third planet out from a nondescript star in a bog standard galaxy… What’s the point of the rest of the universe? It’s the equivalent of George Bush spending his entire life nurturing a grain of sand from Bognor Regis… ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/22 "2004-03-28T13:12:23Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > I agree with all of you, John Bryant uses ad hominem, but then, so does virtually all debaters now-a-days. We don’t use them here. You might want to scroll down the list and read some of the multitudes of threads we have had on atheism vs. theism. And you will get a lot more respect if you stick up for your own views instead of just repeating what other people have said. You’ve done this in four threads now. Nice post,\*\* Zagadka\*\*. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/23 "2004-03-28T13:57:24Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Hell, I’m little trained in philosophy or debate, and even I can think of counterarguing, “well, God not only doesn’t want to reveal Himself in that way, He also wants you to fulfill His plan by having you continue to live, and He loves mankind too much to kill even his most wayward children this way. Not only that, He’s too even-tempered, not to mention that He **knows** what you’re trying to do, to rise to your baiting Him.” Ahh yes, God’s Plan! He lets you live because he “loves” mankind too much to kill his most wayward children, hmm, never heard of hell have you. Some love. ---
**Author:** ![Scarf-Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bc79bd/32.png) [@Scarf-Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scarf-Ace)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/24 "2004-03-28T13:58:10Z")
Theres no such thing as “Religion”, only a collection of practices which for some reason or other share a name. As far as I can make out this chap makes countless assumptions, sweeping generalisations, and inconsistent reasoning in his attack on a non-existent universal: > [@](#): > > A) There are dozens, and perhaps even hundreds or thousands of religions, B) all of which claim to be ‘absolutely true’, C) and all of which contradict one another in fundamental ways. D) The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from this is that all of them are absolutely false. (my annotation.) This excerpt must be celebrated as it contains 2 “facts” (A and B), 1 sweeping generalisation ©, and one faulty bit of logic leading to the conclusion (D). Even if A, B and C were true (which of course it isn’t), the other possibility, that they contain some truth in agreement with each other, as well as some contradictions is not given any consideration. Perhaps “12 indisputable arguments” on the falsity of rehashing old arguments incompetently to sell books would be more appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![elfbabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b782af/32.png) [@elfbabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfbabe)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/25 "2004-03-28T14:17:13Z")
I AM an atheist college student, and even _I_ think these arguments are pretty lame. I find Reason 8 particularly annoying at the moment - that’s the one that asserts that humanity _can’t_ be special, stuck as we are out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy. Anyone who claims to be such a proponent of science really ought to be open to the idea that things that are small and not centrally located can still be extremely important. I wonder what he thinks of electrons. ---
**Author:** ![Jon\_the\_Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bbce88/32.png) [@Jon\_the\_Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon_the_Geek)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/26 "2004-03-28T14:19:06Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > [snip]Oh yes, by the way, I am a college student right now, and have recently converted to agnosticism.[snip] This particular argument against religion is very unconvincing, but I highly suggest that you keep reading the SDMB, and let it help you figure out what **you** believe. This board has converted me from an agnostic to an atheist, btw… but only by better defining the terms. If you buy the “12 Indisputable Arguments” against religion, you are an atheist, not an agnostic: [http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html](http://skepdic.com/agnosticism.html) “Agnosticism is the position of believing that knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God is impossible.” [http://skepdic.com/atheism.html](http://skepdic.com/atheism.html) “Atheism is traditionally defined as _disbelief_ in the existence of God. As such, atheism involves _active rejection of belief_ in the existence of God.” That definition is really what some call a “hard atheist” or “strong atheist.” I’m personally a “soft atheist,” meaning I see no more reason to believe in God than to believe in Invisible Pink Unicorns, and therefore have stopped worrying about the issue. If I see evidence of God’s existance, I might change my stance… but I’m not going to hold my breath. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/27 "2004-03-28T14:29:49Z")
> [@elfbabe](#): > > I AM an atheist college student, and even _I_ think these arguments are pretty lame. > > I find Reason 8 particularly annoying at the moment - that’s the one that asserts that humanity _can’t_ be special, stuck as we are out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy. Anyone who claims to be such a proponent of science really ought to be open to the idea that things that are small and not centrally located can still be extremely important. I wonder what he thinks of electrons. Isn’t one of the conditions of life that it must exist in the outer reaches of he galaxy? I would imagine the radiation levels of the inner galaxy would prevent any life from forming. ---
**Author:** ![Greyson3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/258eb7/32.png) [@Greyson3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greyson3)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/28 "2004-03-28T14:43:10Z")
Are you kidding me? Is this some kind of joke? This guy is insane. He hates religion and Jews. Might as well ask somebody to refute Ted Jesus Christ God or the Timecube. The proper response to this guy is to sit back and laugh. ---
**Author:** ![elfbabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b782af/32.png) [@elfbabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfbabe)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/29 "2004-03-28T14:45:45Z")
> [@Greyson3](#): > > Might as well ask somebody to refute Ted Jesus Christ God or the Timecube. Hey! Hey! Sounds like _someone_’s been educated stupid. Gene Ray wisest human! ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/30 "2004-03-28T15:18:40Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > So? Scientists “knew” the earth was flat, they “knew” about the 4 elements, they “knew” about the humors… what is the point here? Science and religion both grow and change over time, as more knowledge is gained and more study is done. > > Science never claims to be absolute, but ever changing as better evidence is produced. But religion claims to be absolute. Actually the whole “everyone believed the earth was flat” thing isn’t true either. Religion claims to be absolute about _some_ things, depending on which belief system you’re talking about. Many religions do not claim to know all about the physical world (or the spiritual for that matter), and most Christians never have either. The ones that do get all the press. The Bible gives very little space to matters of how the earth came to be, and a whole lot of space to how we should treat one another. Many have taken this to mean that scripture is not really in the business of teaching science. And ‘science,’ when actual people get involved, is never as unemotional, objective and quick to change as we like to think; people get attached to their theories and don’t want to accept new ideas in the scientific realm as well. That’s just human nature. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/31 "2004-03-28T15:33:54Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Science never claims to be absolute, but ever changing as better evidence is produced. But religion claims to be absolute. If that is so, how come your OP title claims there are **“indisputable”** arguments for the falsity of religion? Ya got some more reading to do. These “indisputable” arguments are weak… about as solid as the “evidence” that the creationists claim “disproves evolution”. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/32 "2004-03-28T15:42:15Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Aquinas uses logical method only in a conditional manner. he starts with certain faith-based predicates and builds from there. he does not actually start at ground zero and and soundly argue his way into Christian theological conclusions. Right; I don’t disagree. I was just using Aquinas as an example of someone who “applied logic to religion.” But, logically, _can_ you “start at ground zero”? Don’t you have to have some premises to begin drawing conclusions from? Descartes tried starting from nothing, and reasoned that he, at least, existed (“I think therefore I am”); and if I remember correctly he _thought_ he managed to prove the existence of God, though I don’t think anyone accepts his proof. ---
**Author:** ![gobear](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8dc957/32.png) [@gobear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gobear)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/33 "2004-03-28T16:51:01Z")
John Bryant’s writining displays the usual signs of the crank [ul] [li]Excessive “use” of “quotation” marks that makes “no” sense[/li][li]Coining neologisms[/li][li] Claiming unique insights that the vulgar mob cannot understand[/li][li]Claiming persecution by the authorities in his field[/li][/ul] **Science Girl** would do well to turn on her Bullshit Meter so that she knows not to quote nutcases to bolster her arguments. I’m certainly no friend to theism, but the arguments cited are rubbish for the reason previously enumerated by other posters. One cannot disprove the existence of gods in themselves, and as long as the religious confine themselves to questions of spirituality and morals, their faith is unassailable. It’s when they regard their religious texts as science books that they get into trouble. ---
**Author:** ![Magickly\_Delicious](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magickly\_Delicious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magickly_Delicious)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/34 "2004-03-28T17:21:07Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Science never claims to be absolute, but ever changing as better evidence is produced. But religion claims to be absolute. Wrong. Roman Catholics believe that God reveals himself throughout the narrative of history, which includes today and the future. [Link](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2567.htm) The religious development of Japan in history is often used as an example of the way religion grows and changes,and is pretty much okay with it. Take the example of Shinto: > [@](#): > > Rather than a system of dogmatic beliefs or a definite code of ethics, Shinto is a diverse set of traditional rituals and ceremonies…It has also been influenced by Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism, and, in modern times, Christianity. > from page 199 of _Religions of Asia_, third ed., Robert K.C. Forman, general editor. Seriously, **Science Girl** , take a class on comparative religions while you’re at school. You’d be a great addition to the class, and you’d be a lot better informed than you would just by reading “the most controversial author in the world.” ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/35 "2004-03-28T17:45:48Z")
**Moderator’s Note:** **Science Girl** , please see [this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4693079#post4693079). ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/36 "2004-03-28T17:53:20Z")
> [@gobear](#): > > One cannot disprove the existence of gods in themselves, and as long as the religious confine themselves to questions of spirituality and morals, their faith is unassailable. I disagree with your second statement there (and probably your first as well–_some_ gods are sufficiently well-defined that their existence can be disproven; many can be disproven to the same degree we regard other absurd claims as disproven, even if we can’t disprove them in a strict, logical sense). For example, the views of those who, based on their religious faith, proclaim that homosexual acts are inherently immoral are _not_ unassailable, and should be challenged. ---
**Author:** ![Antnee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@Antnee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antnee)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/37 "2004-03-28T19:18:58Z")
> [@Epimetheus](#): > > Ahh yes, God’s Plan! He lets you live because he “loves” mankind too much to kill his most wayward children, hmm, never heard of hell have you. Some love. I don’t know, it sounds like a loving God to me. I mean, given freewill to chose how to live here and now, as well as for eternity…pretty sweet deal! Sarcasm aside, aren’t both sides of the argument just working hypothosese? I guess we’ll all know the Truth soon enough. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/38 "2004-03-28T20:53:21Z")
> [@dangermom](#): > > And ‘science,’ when actual people get involved, is never as unemotional, objective and quick to change as we like to think; people get attached to their theories and don’t want to accept new ideas in the scientific realm as well. That’s just human nature. Actually, science as an entity is unemotional. But people often don’t like the results of what science discovers and then get emotional. ---
**Author:** ![Zagadka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zagadka/32/7272_2.png) [@Zagadka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagadka)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/39 "2004-03-28T20:56:14Z")
> [@Science Girl](#): > > Actually, science as an entity is unemotional. But people often don’t like the results of what science discovers and then get emotional. Funny. Religion, as an entity, of course, is also unemotional. But people often don’t like the results of what religion means, and then get emotional. ---
**Author:** ![Science\_Girl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f14d63/32.png) [@Science\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Science_Girl)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2004, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868/40 "2004-03-28T20:59:22Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Funny. Religion, as an entity, of course, is also unemotional. But people often don’t like the results of what religion means, and then get emotional. Religion is VERY emotional, have you not read the Bible? It’s filled with emotion. And it is said to be absolute. The Bible does not say “well, this is what God says right now, but maybe he can be proven wrong.” Only science says that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-falsity-of-religion-twelve-indisputable-arguments/236868.md?page=3)