• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

4 Terrible arguments Atheists make.

God is a hypothetical construct.
 
Dezaad said:
Sort of. But, this is precisely the reason we atheists compare god to other things that have no evidence (invisible pink unicorns on another plane that sometimes visit our plane, for example). We don't say 'maybe they exist, maybe they don't'. Why should Jehovah (or any god) be treated any differently?
Click to expand...

They shouldn't, if the nature of your invisible pink unicorns is something beyond the realm of human understanding, human conceptualization, exist outside of our reality and aren't bound by the same "rules of the universe" that other things are, then no they shouldn't fall into a different category.

If you look at the old Greek Pagan Gods for example, we can safely say do not exist because all the things about them have been shown not to exist. They do not physically live on top of Mt. Olympus, there's no giant that holds up the sky. Because the nature of these gods were being that existed within our physical world and frequently interacted with it, at the time the realm of human understanding couldn't necessarily prove them to be non existent but as our realm of understanding increased we could prove they do not exist. However the God of Jews/Christians/Muslims doesn't fall into that category and since his characteristics, whether you believe those characteristics to be fictional or not, are by definition outside the realm of human understanding and therefore the only thing we know for sure is "maybe, maybe not."
 
If it's invisible, it's not pink.

Why not worship who God answers to?
 
Wiseone said:
They shouldn't, if the nature of your invisible pink unicorns is something beyond the realm of human understanding, human conceptualization, exist outside of our reality and aren't bound by the same "rules of the universe" that other things are, then no they shouldn't fall into a different category.

If you look at the old Greek Pagan Gods for example, we can safely say do not exist because all the things about them have been shown not to exist. They do not physically live on top of Mt. Olympus, there's no giant that holds up the sky. Because the nature of these gods were being that existed within our physical world and frequently interacted with it, at the time the realm of human understanding couldn't necessarily prove them to be non existent but as our realm of understanding increased we could prove they do not exist. However the God of Jews/Christians/Muslims doesn't fall into that category and since his characteristics, whether you believe those characteristics to be fictional or not, are by definition outside the realm of human understanding and therefore the only thing we know for sure is "maybe, maybe not."
Click to expand...

Your objection relies upon Jehovah having originally been defined as having existed 'outside our realm'. If you allow redefinition for Jehovah, then you must allow it for Zeus. Just as the Romans took up the cause of the olympian gods under a new definition (Zeus became Jupiter, who did not reside on Mt Olympus). The conception of the word "Heaven" was not originally deemed to be outside our realm. Furthermore, there are plenty of other gods who were defined loosely enough that they could be conceived to be outside our realm.

Interestingly, you have not addressed other fantasies, and why we reject them rather than say 'maybe, maybe not'. They are infinite in number because they are limited only by our imagination. There is an infinite number of fantasies which could all be considered to be outside of verifiable scrutiny based on evidence. And yet we don't say 'maybe, maybe not' with any of those fantasies. The conception of god has only one way to separate itself from fantasy: provide evidence. Otherwise, it is equivalent to those fantasies, however elaborately conceived, and however many happen to believe in god.
 
Thorgasm said:
If it's invisible, it's not pink.

Why not worship who God answers to?
Click to expand...

It is pink if it rarely and magically becomes visible.
 
Dezaad said:
It is not ridiculous because believing in one thing without evidence and not believing in other things because of lack of evidence is simply choosing to believe in what fits your taste.

There is no evidence for the Christian god, and therefore we should withhold belief in that god just as we do with other gods for which there is no evidence; just as we do for any thing else at all for which there is no evidence.

If Christians want to argue that there is evidence for Jehovah and that this makes him dissimilar to other gods, then they ought to present that evidence when they claim that he is dissimilar from other gods.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming what is being proposed makes no difference? If there is evidence for a supernatural, then what is being proposed for that supernatural makes a HUGE difference.
 
Dezaad said:
It is pink if it rarely and magically becomes visible.
Click to expand...

Your arbitrarily adding a property on something, which requires some explination, you have centuries of theology explaining the properties of god and why and why not they would necessarily have to be there or not be there.
 
RGacky3 said:
Are you claiming what is being proposed makes no difference? If there is evidence for a supernatural, then what is being proposed for that supernatural makes a HUGE difference.
Click to expand...

I am saying you haven't demonstrated a difference because you haven't presented the evidence that you claim . Without evidence, god is just a fantastical claim like every other fantastical claim.
 
RGacky3 said:
Your arbitrarily adding a property on something, which requires some explination, you have centuries of theology explaining the properties of god and why and why not they would necessarily have to be there or not be there.
Click to expand...
Any explanation without evidence is an arbitrary change of a property.
 
Dezaad said:
Any explanation without evidence is an arbitrary change of a property.
Click to expand...

Much of theoretical physics doesn't have any evidence .... neither does most of philosophy.
 
RGacky3 said:
1. "I just believe in one God less than you, you don't believe in Zeus, Thor and so on and so forth"This is a rediculous argument, The monotheistic Abrahamic God is in a WHOLE different category than pagan Gods.
Click to expand...
The set of all Gods includes other montheistic gods, it's not just pagan gods. The fact that some of those fictional and mythological entities are different in arbitrary ways from what you believe Christians doesn't change the validity of the claim. Even if we accepted that absurd rebuttal, you're faced with the fact that if you excluded the "arbitrarily non-similar" fictional dieties from that set, your'e still left with a set of fictional gods presumably greater than one, of which Christians only believe in one, and atheists have no belief.

2. "You might as well say Unicorns exist."No, Unicorns exist IN space and time, they have shape and are material, God is not any of those things
You could say "well its a Unicorn that doesn't exist in space and time," if that's the case then it's not a horse with a horn, since those are material properties, then it's not a "unicorn" is it, or then you could say "well it can manifest in space and time as a unicorn bceause it's a magical unicorn," Assuming that why couldn't it manifest as anything? making it just like God, if it can ONLY manifest as a unicorn, you're essencailly saying "God" with one strange unexplainable property, i.e. "only being able to manifest as a Unicorn." Once you strip it down it's a very silly argument.
Click to expand...
The notion of a divine being is as silly as the mythical magical unicorn, that's correct. Unicorns are based on concepts taken from things in reality, that's true. Look at where logic leads that argument though RGack3y. Where oh where can we get concepts for this God if not reality...then maybe non-reality. Bingo. It's not real, by definition. Your further analysis if the imagined limitations of a fictional unicorn are indeed silly.

3. "Science can explain everything."
Click to expand...
Its shorthand, but largely correct. Anything that can be explained by people, can be explained by people, it's really more of a tautology. Science is that body and process of discovering truths about reality. That includes all reality that can be included, it's open-ended. You cannot reasonably talk about those things that *cannot* be included, because doing so is trivially contradictory (you'd be claiming to know truths about things which by definition cannot be known...!) Of course, pointing out that science doesn't apply to god points out the same thing we already know, it is not applicable to non-reality. Which of course is what the god concepts refer to. Same as 2. above, not a coincidence.

4. "You cannot PROVE God."
Click to expand...
True, trying to introduce the requirement of "proving" for reality, is absurd. But that's often just sloppy wording or thinking. We typically use science to identify truths of reality, see #3 above. They are based on evidence from reality, alignment with the hierarchy of established science (knowledge), logical consistency, repeatability, etc. Those also cannot be used to evidence the christian diety god.

The problem with God that most people don't figure out is that it's by definition not real. There is no proof of non-real things, nor is there science. God is about beliving in something outside of reality, that's the entire point. This constant desire for some to try and justify that is pointless. That's why they have faith and not reason for this.

I find anti-atheistic arguments almost as pointless as anti-god arguments. Neither get us very far IMO, and I'll be the first to admit I engage in indulgences that are otherwise pointless sometimes.
 
RGacky3 said:
Much of theoretical physics doesn't have any evidence .... neither does most of philosophy.
Click to expand...

Scientific hypotheses are disimilar from fantastical claims largely because they are made with a view to either providing evidence or falsifying them. But, until evidence is presented, they are not believed.
 
I can't, which illustrates my point, nicely. Thank you.
 
RGacky3 said:
If there is evidence for a supernatural, then what is being proposed for that supernatural makes a HUGE difference.
Click to expand...
By definition there cannot be evidence of the supernatural. It's not a lack of evidence, or an unknown, by definition CANNOT. There is no need to differentiate such contradictions, it's binary. Contradiction, not a contradiction, so no, the qualifiers included in the contradiction make NO difference, not a HUGE difference as you claim.
 
I have a pet gueanie pig I decide when he eats can distract him to decide when he sleeps or when he is bathed to him I am god in a weird and strange way
 
Un biased said:
I have a pet gueanie pig I decide when he eats can distract him to decide when he sleeps or when he is bathed to him I am god in a weird and strange way
Click to expand...

Your racism will not be tolerated. The PC term is Italian chauvinist.
 
RGacky3 said:
The proposition God exists is proposing a TOTALLY different thing than saying thor or odin exists.

none of those Gods are trancendant, none of them are omnipotent or omnicient, the only similarity is that you don't believe in both of them.

I dismiss the other Gods because they were all made with pressupositions that we know are false, and that if they did exist we would expect evidence of them, and because they don't explain anything that cannot be explained using better hypothesis.

the monotheistic God is of a TOTALLY different type, he is NOT physical, he is NOT a falwed individual, he cannot be bound by humans, he is omnipotent and omnicient and so on.
Click to expand...

only difference I see is that certain extra qualities have been assigned to your god that makes him different in your eyes. I and many other atheists do not agree that such a being with such qualities exists, and this is most likely just a convenient fabrication. Even though you consider this transcendental all powerful all knowing god exists and has these properties, they are unsubstantiated properties, and it is impossible to say that they are the actual properties of your god and not created by man - therefore in the eyes of the non-believer it is equivalent to Thor and Odin and any other past gods.

The only difference is that there are a few more attributes assigned to this god that allow a believer to maintain their faith in the face of criticism, it elevates your perception of this god to a point where you can remain secure in the "god is beyond our understanding" fog. You - as a believer - accept and insist on these properties of your god. Us - as non believers - do not, and see it as attributes that are a convenient shield to avoid criticism, we do not think they are actually attributes of your god- because we do not accept that your god exists.

For us the criticism (comparing to other gods) is an entirely valid argument because we do not accept the premise you are trying to argue from. Your premise is unsubstantiated and therefore completely invalid. Once you have conclusively demonstrated the veracity of the claim that god is omniscient ect. then you can try your argument on us - until then it is an invalid (counter) argument.

edit to refocus on this part:

I dismiss the other Gods because they were all made with pressupositions that we know are false
Click to expand...

Your god is unfalsifiable because of these attributes he supposedly has, that is the only difference - he is conveniently beyond falsification. I do not know that the presupposition of his existence is false, but I most certainly DO NOT accept it as true- and for me to accept the attributes assigned to him that would be a crucial first step - we have not established hos existence and here you are insisting on attributes that are borderline preposterous on top of that.
 
Last edited:
Dragonfly said:
Actually - I've never heard any atheist make any of those kinds of claims like the one in the OP.

I just felt like my response was better than simply calling BS!!!!!
Click to expand...

Those usually aren't arguments made seriously, but it's the best that theists can come up with. Now if you go and look at the really awful arguments made by theists, they'd fill up a hundred pages of posts here.
 
Thorgasm said:
Your racism will not be tolerated. The PC term is Italian chauvinist.
Click to expand...

A gunea pig is like a cross of a rabbit and a pig called a gunea pig ( look it up they are adorable )
 
RGacky3 said:
1. "I just believe in one God less than you, you don't believe in Zeus, Thor and so on and so forth"

This is a rediculous argument, The monotheistic Abrahamic God is in a WHOLE different category than pagan Gods. Pagan Gods were not all powerful, they were subject to other forces, infact could be compelled by Magic, there was a higher spiritual realm with forces that they were subject to, they were more or less physical, persons that had sexual relations, physical features and so on, they were not perfect, they had flaws, whims, failings and so on, they were not all knowing, many of them were actually Gods to be countered and feared, NONE of them claimed to be THE God, they were not worshiped as THE God. The monothestic God of Abraham was totally different, you're comparing apples and oranges..
Click to expand...

So you're telling us that a God who told people what to write in the old testament, much of which is barbaric and the whims of a fickle, moody, pretentious God who is jealous and doesn't want you to eat shellfish or wear clothing of different cloths or a number of other petty things, THEN changed his mind and let Jesus take the reins and basically reexplain everything in the new testament with a better attitude, is any better than Zeus?... give me a break.

RGacky3 said:
2. "You might as well say Unicorns exist."

No, Unicorns exist IN space and time, they have shape and are material, God is not any of those things.
You could say "well its a Unicorn that doesn't exist in space and time," if that's the case then it's not a horse with a horn, since those are material properties, then it's not a "unicorn" is it, or then you could say "well it can manifest in space and time as a unicorn bceause it's a magical unicorn," Assuming that why couldn't it manifest as anything? making it just like God, if it can ONLY manifest as a unicorn, you're essencailly saying "God" with one strange unexplainable property, i.e. "only being able to manifest as a Unicorn." Once you strip it down it's a very silly argument..
Click to expand...

This is an example of just how far the religious are willing to reach in order to have things make sense in their favor. You probably had a headache after coming up with this bit.

RGacky3 said:
3. "Science can explain everything."

Science explains the mechanisms of the Universe ... That isn't what religion claims to explain, never has, God is not an explination of how the universe works, its an explination of why the Universe exists..
Click to expand...

Very well... then God and religion should have absolutely no say in any area of discourse whatsoever, and should let scientists do their jobs. And what exactly would you say religion has explalined in terms of why the universe exists...? I'm drawing blanks.

RGacky3 said:
4. "You cannot PROVE God."

You cannot PROVE most things, you cannot PROVE almost anything in history, you cannot PROVE that other minds exist than yours, proof means something shown to be true without reasonable doubt, i.e. mathematical proof, you cannot PROVE multiverse theory ... doesn't make it wrong.
Click to expand...


Things which are said to be 'proved' are done so through science, mathematics, writing, etc, which are realms in which God likes to conveniently avoid :/
 
Un biased said:
A gunea pig is like a cross of a rabbit and a pig called a gunea pig ( look it up they are adorable )
Click to expand...

I know. I was joking. It was double entendre.
 
RGacky3 said:
Much of theoretical physics doesn't have any evidence ...
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but NO part of theoretical physics makes the assumption that there's no way to prove or disprove the "theory". There's always the assumption that given time, technology, and more thought on the subject that an experiment can be done to prove or disprove at least certain parts of the theory. As more and more parts are proved, the theory becomes more and more accepted. No scientist, professional or armchair, takes anything in science on "faith". They expect proof before they agree it's true. Even the scientists making the assertion only propose it as an explanation and freely admit they may be wrong if there's no proof.

When theists get around to adopting this concept you let me know. Until then, don't bother to compare science of any kind to religion. It just makes you look silly.


RGacky3 said:
... neither does most of philosophy.
Click to expand...
Who cares? :shrug:
 
Knowledge=power said:
So you're telling us that a God who told people what to write in the old testament, much of which is barbaric and the whims of a fickle, moody, pretentious God who is jealous and doesn't want you to eat shellfish or wear clothing of different cloths or a number of other petty things, THEN changed his mind and let Jesus take the reins and basically reexplain everything in the new testament with a better attitude, is any better than Zeus?... give me a break.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said is it? Re-Read what I said, never mentioned the bible.

This is an example of just how far the religious are willing to reach in order to have things make sense in their favor. You probably had a headache after coming up with this bit.
Click to expand...

It's pretty simply logic.

Very well... then God and religion should have absolutely no say in any area of discourse whatsoever, and should let scientists do their jobs. And what exactly would you say religion has explalined in terms of why the universe exists...? I'm drawing blanks.
Click to expand...

Religion predicted the universe had a begining, science confirmed that, religion would predict that science is ordered and intelligable.

Also not EVERY area is science. So saying "religion should have no say in any area, and scientists should do there jobs" assumes that scientists are qualified in EVERY area.

Things which are said to be 'proved' are done so through science, mathematics, writing, etc, which are realms in which God likes to conveniently avoid :/
Click to expand...

You're not making sense here .... It's like saying literature studies writings of people, realms in which authors conveniently like to avoid, point is as descartes showed us, proof is difficult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom