I see a lot of truly terrible arguments used against theism, not in specific categories but as a whole. I think that a lot of these arguments do work in certain contexts, when directed to certain interpretations or specific religions. The point if this is to address arguments that address theism over all. If one is truly interested in philosophy, the pursuit of truth, then I highly suggest you watch for these from yourself and others. I know I will be trying harder to!
Arguments from Holy Books
This is where an individual argues against theism based on the nature of their holy text(s). Often this is specifically the bible, but it can be any holy text at all. If holy texts are indeed invalid, this does not imply anything further than the rejection of the holy text as literal truth. That’s it, it certainly cannot be stretched to disprove all theistic positions. This is doubly important when individuals reject one specific holy text, such as the bible, and then conclude that every form of theism must be completely wrong.
Arguments based on False Association
Very often gods get compared to unicorns, tea pots, invisible, pink dragons, so forth and so on. At face value these seem almost convincing, but logically speaking they are flawed. For example, say that I claim to have an invisible unicorn in my garage, and compare it to the god of another theist. Since I am making a comparison, I am stating that my unicorn is of the same characteristics as their god, meaning that it is necessary, non-contingent, likely outside of space and time, indescribable, and so on. We can then look at my unicorn and make several observations: it is apparently limited to my garage, not outside of space and not outside of time (since my garage is temporal and rather new compared to the universe at large). How is my unicorn necessary? Without it would some fundamental aspect of reality be lost, such as order? Why do we know exactly what a unicorn looks like if it is indescribable? If the unicorn is a god claim, then it will have to be defended like a god claim. It may seem witty, but you’re comparing two separate things and pretending they are on the same ground.
Arguments against Bias
Everyone is susceptible to bias, basically end of story. Field of study will likely have a far greater impact on one’s control over bias than any philosophical path, and even those individuals have biases. So to point out that “people can be biased” is a waste of time, and dishonest when you ignore your own susceptibility.
“All” and “No” Arguments
These are the arguments where a claim is made such as “All theistic arguments have been shown unsound”, or “No theistic arguments can ever be shown sound”. These claims require omniscience. The former assumes that one is aware of literally every theistic argument ever made (theoretically impossible), and the latter assumes to know and be able to account for all possible theistic arguments. These are just plain bad logic, low level stuff. It’s a simple fix too, just avoid all and no statements except in very specific situations. Science itself is literally required to do this, as it has to be able to update and adapt to new knowledge. There is a nifty tool known as the “square of opposition” which illustrates this very clearly, and can help you call bull**** when people make such claims.
“You Can’t Show” Arguments
Another basic one that seems convincing on the outside, yet is logically flawed. Just because someone cannot show something does not make that thing untrue. This is a serious problem that happens on all sides of the debates, and is basically a useless objection anyways.
Argument that Arguments are not Evidence
More and more often it seems that individuals are claiming logical argumentation is not a form of evidence. This is problematic in a few different ways. For one, why not? We can reject positions based on them being logically flawed, in many cases specifically due to a lack of evidence! Logic is the foundation of all reality as we understand it. As an example, one can reject a square circle without ever appealing to evidence. It’s not that you were told there was no square circle (testimony), were taught it (memory), have looked literally everywhere in existence for one (sensory experience), or anything of the sort. It is simply a violation of logic, and so we can reject it, or accept the claim that no square circles exist. (This is also an example of an appropriate “no” argument”. Another problem is that evidence itself is useless, possibly even incomprehensible, without logical arguments. How do we decide what evidence is valid? Through what process do we determine something like “empirical evidence is greater than other evidence?”
Argument from Popularity
For some baffling reason, this argument seems to be used more and more often. This is the argument that (1) “Theist A does not believe _____X____”, (2) “Theists B – Z believe ____X___”, (3) “Therefore we can reject and ignore Theist A’s position.” This is nonsense, pure and simple.
Argument from the Definition of Faith
Throughout history, theists have been providing evidence they believe to be valid, and reasoning they believe to be sound, for the existence of their god(s). Whether or not you accept their evidence and arguments or not, they were indeed believing based on evidence and reason, even if poorly. Philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas tried grounding their philosophy in empirical evidence (such as causality) for this very reason. In fact, the definition of faith often used to argue against theism is “faith without or against reason and evidence,” which comes specifically from Hebrews chapter 11. Further, the idea that reason and evidence should be rejected over belief is a very specific subset of faith that already has a philosophical term: fideism. Instead, faith can be seen as believing beyond what the reason and evidence confirm, though not necessarily against it. All that being said, relying on definitions over the intended meaning of any word is absurd.
Arguments from Skepticism
Somehow the term skepticism has moved from meaning one who questions everything to one who questions everything that is not strict naturalism. While skepticism finds it impossible to be satisfied with most answers, the modern take on it seem quite satisfied with naturalism, reductionism, and so forth. This really becomes a problem similar to the arguments against bias, because modern skepticism is, itself, not actually skeptical. It cannot accuse theists of not being skeptical enough while mostly ignoring the most serious problems of epistemology (such as the hard problem of solipsism).
Arguments from Prediction
This is another common one, which assumes to know how questions will be answered in the future. For example, accepting reductionism on the basis that, one day, we may be able to show that reductionism is true. This ties in with the all and no statement very well, because it again requires omniscience, or at least some sort of ability to literally see the future.
Arguments from Holy Books
This is where an individual argues against theism based on the nature of their holy text(s). Often this is specifically the bible, but it can be any holy text at all. If holy texts are indeed invalid, this does not imply anything further than the rejection of the holy text as literal truth. That’s it, it certainly cannot be stretched to disprove all theistic positions. This is doubly important when individuals reject one specific holy text, such as the bible, and then conclude that every form of theism must be completely wrong.
Arguments based on False Association
Very often gods get compared to unicorns, tea pots, invisible, pink dragons, so forth and so on. At face value these seem almost convincing, but logically speaking they are flawed. For example, say that I claim to have an invisible unicorn in my garage, and compare it to the god of another theist. Since I am making a comparison, I am stating that my unicorn is of the same characteristics as their god, meaning that it is necessary, non-contingent, likely outside of space and time, indescribable, and so on. We can then look at my unicorn and make several observations: it is apparently limited to my garage, not outside of space and not outside of time (since my garage is temporal and rather new compared to the universe at large). How is my unicorn necessary? Without it would some fundamental aspect of reality be lost, such as order? Why do we know exactly what a unicorn looks like if it is indescribable? If the unicorn is a god claim, then it will have to be defended like a god claim. It may seem witty, but you’re comparing two separate things and pretending they are on the same ground.
Arguments against Bias
Everyone is susceptible to bias, basically end of story. Field of study will likely have a far greater impact on one’s control over bias than any philosophical path, and even those individuals have biases. So to point out that “people can be biased” is a waste of time, and dishonest when you ignore your own susceptibility.
“All” and “No” Arguments
These are the arguments where a claim is made such as “All theistic arguments have been shown unsound”, or “No theistic arguments can ever be shown sound”. These claims require omniscience. The former assumes that one is aware of literally every theistic argument ever made (theoretically impossible), and the latter assumes to know and be able to account for all possible theistic arguments. These are just plain bad logic, low level stuff. It’s a simple fix too, just avoid all and no statements except in very specific situations. Science itself is literally required to do this, as it has to be able to update and adapt to new knowledge. There is a nifty tool known as the “square of opposition” which illustrates this very clearly, and can help you call bull**** when people make such claims.
“You Can’t Show” Arguments
Another basic one that seems convincing on the outside, yet is logically flawed. Just because someone cannot show something does not make that thing untrue. This is a serious problem that happens on all sides of the debates, and is basically a useless objection anyways.
Argument that Arguments are not Evidence
More and more often it seems that individuals are claiming logical argumentation is not a form of evidence. This is problematic in a few different ways. For one, why not? We can reject positions based on them being logically flawed, in many cases specifically due to a lack of evidence! Logic is the foundation of all reality as we understand it. As an example, one can reject a square circle without ever appealing to evidence. It’s not that you were told there was no square circle (testimony), were taught it (memory), have looked literally everywhere in existence for one (sensory experience), or anything of the sort. It is simply a violation of logic, and so we can reject it, or accept the claim that no square circles exist. (This is also an example of an appropriate “no” argument”. Another problem is that evidence itself is useless, possibly even incomprehensible, without logical arguments. How do we decide what evidence is valid? Through what process do we determine something like “empirical evidence is greater than other evidence?”
Argument from Popularity
For some baffling reason, this argument seems to be used more and more often. This is the argument that (1) “Theist A does not believe _____X____”, (2) “Theists B – Z believe ____X___”, (3) “Therefore we can reject and ignore Theist A’s position.” This is nonsense, pure and simple.
Argument from the Definition of Faith
Throughout history, theists have been providing evidence they believe to be valid, and reasoning they believe to be sound, for the existence of their god(s). Whether or not you accept their evidence and arguments or not, they were indeed believing based on evidence and reason, even if poorly. Philosophers like Aristotle and Aquinas tried grounding their philosophy in empirical evidence (such as causality) for this very reason. In fact, the definition of faith often used to argue against theism is “faith without or against reason and evidence,” which comes specifically from Hebrews chapter 11. Further, the idea that reason and evidence should be rejected over belief is a very specific subset of faith that already has a philosophical term: fideism. Instead, faith can be seen as believing beyond what the reason and evidence confirm, though not necessarily against it. All that being said, relying on definitions over the intended meaning of any word is absurd.
Arguments from Skepticism
Somehow the term skepticism has moved from meaning one who questions everything to one who questions everything that is not strict naturalism. While skepticism finds it impossible to be satisfied with most answers, the modern take on it seem quite satisfied with naturalism, reductionism, and so forth. This really becomes a problem similar to the arguments against bias, because modern skepticism is, itself, not actually skeptical. It cannot accuse theists of not being skeptical enough while mostly ignoring the most serious problems of epistemology (such as the hard problem of solipsism).
Arguments from Prediction
This is another common one, which assumes to know how questions will be answered in the future. For example, accepting reductionism on the basis that, one day, we may be able to show that reductionism is true. This ties in with the all and no statement very well, because it again requires omniscience, or at least some sort of ability to literally see the future.
