Poor Arguments against Theism

[suncowiam]

This isn't a defense of theism, it's a rejection of poor logic.

After reading your post, I really haven't gained anything on theology or religion.

I'm still at square 1. Sure, I can't disprove nor can I prove it. I've gained nothing from my original position.

Like I tell anyone, if you can prove it to me then I will say you're right. If I didn't believe you, asserted you were wrong, then after you've proven it to me... Without hesitation, I will apologize to you and assert that I was wrong. This is the more productive use of logic. It helps people come to conclusions where they can move on to other things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, that was insanely easy to find since it's so common.

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/the-bible-is-fiction-a-collection-of-evidence/#gs.yNj92DM

http://godisimaginary.com/i5.htm

http://www.nairaland.com/79465/10-reasons-why-god-doesnt

Can we stop stalling now and get to number 2?

None of those say what you claimed.

Seems like there's quite a gap between what people say and what you think they say.

 

[1137]

None of those say what you claimed.

Seems like there's quite a gap between what people say and what you think they say.

I've already conceded that it can be seen as a straw man due to my interpretation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Really, you didn't see, for example, how the god is imaginary site states "The reason why the Bible contains so much nonsense is because God is imaginary"?

I'm interested to watch you try to get from "God is imaginary and this is why the Bible is nonsense" to "the Bible is nonsense, therefore God is imaginary" and from there to "the Bible is nonsense, therefore all theists - including non-Christians - are wrong."

Don't throw your back out with the gymnastics.

 

[1137]

I'm interested to watch you try to get from "God is imaginary and this is why the Bible is nonsense" to "the Bible is nonsense, therefore God is imaginary" and from there to "the Bible is nonsense, therefore all theists - including non-Christians - are wrong."

Don't throw your back out with the gymnastics.

Having some comprehension issues? You're suppose to be providing a second straw man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've already conceded that it can be seen as a straw man due to my interpretation.

Fair enough. Let's go on to straw man #2, then... coincidentally your second example: "Argument from False Accusation."

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.

Atheists aren't stating this. This is just your way to try to insert some unjustified special pleading for your god into the atheist's argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Having some comprehension issues?

No, that's all you.

I'm giving more and more weight to the possibility that the OP isn't deliberate trolling, but a sincere result of a complete and utter failure on your part of understanding what atheists tell you.

 

[1137]

Fair enough. Let's go on to straw man #2, then... coincidentally your second example: "Argument from False Accusation."


Atheists aren't stating this. This is just your way to try to insert some unjustified special pleading for your god into the atheist's argument.

So what are atheists stating then? The concept of god a theist is arguing often includes numerous traits that make it a god in the first place. These are not traits given to the unicorn, and are required traits to be considered a god. The only other possibility is that it's simply an argument that attacks the empirical evidence of theism. Of course philosophers I mentioned above have been providing empirical evidence (ie causality) for centuries, and empirical evidence is not the only valid kind of evidence, so this is pretty much a dead end.

 

[Windwalker]

And yet you are completely unable to present even one quote..?

Not unable. Not willing to do a Google search for you.

 

[McBell]

Not unable. Not willing to do a Google search for you.

Not my job to do your homework.
You made a claim.
That you can not support said claim means we can dismiss it.

 

[Kartari]

Hi 1137,

So what are atheists stating then? The concept of god a theist is arguing often includes numerous traits that make it a god in the first place. These are not traits given to the unicorn, and are required traits to be considered a god. The only other possibility is that it's simply an argument that attacks the empirical evidence of theism. Of course philosophers I mentioned above have been providing empirical evidence (ie causality) for centuries, and empirical evidence is not the only valid kind of evidence, so this is pretty much a dead end.

I think you are entirely misunderstanding why atheists sometimes compare deity concepts with mythical creatures such as unicorns. This "False Association" argument is actually the same argument as your "You Can't Show" argument. That unicorns and gods have different traits or properties is entirely irrelevant to the argument. They are compared simply because they are both beings that can only be shown to exist within the confines of the human imagination, but not in actual reality.

No, the inability to demonstrate the existence of any given deity beyond the confines of human imagination does not disprove its existence. However, the fact remains that god concepts are indiscernible from imaginary concepts from our human vantage point. Therefore, there remains no sound logical reason to assume that deities are anything other than imaginary concepts. This is the real point of the comparison.

We are each free to defy the lack of evidence and believe what we wish anyway. But with respect to logical and evidence-based arguments, I've yet to see a theistic stance stand its ground in the two decades I've been debating online.

If you think you can provide evidence to the contrary, that you can show that one or more deities of your choosing exist in reality and not merely within the confines of the human imagination, then by all means go for it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what are atheists stating then?

Just what they actually say.

The concept of god a theist is arguing often includes numerous traits that make it a god in the first place. These are not traits given to the unicorn, and are required traits to be considered a god.

Every concept has its own unique characteristics. This doesn't mean that any time we draw a comparison between two things that we're claiming the one thing has all the characteristics of the other.

The only other possibility is that it's simply an argument that attacks the empirical evidence of theism.

There are probably many possibilities, but how about you give an example of an argument you think is an "argument from false accusation" and we'll unpack it?

 

[Quintessence]

What do you mean by "that particular type of theism"?

Well, theism is an umbrella term, after all. So much so that the term is arguably useless. If someone is using sacred texts of particular religious traditions to argue against that religion (and by extension, the theology of that tradition), it would only apply to the types of theism supported in that religion and its texts, not those outside of its bounds. For example, someone trying to argue Christianity is rubbish by discrediting the Bible would reasonably extend this to a criticism of Christian theology and their particular flavors of theism - stuff like classical monotheism, trinitarianism, etc. It would not reasonably extend to other types of theism, like pantheistic monotheism, autotheism, etc. That said, folks find creative ways of making arguments and connecting interesting dots together...

Something else: it's very rare that I've ever seen people try to "disprove" the existence of some god. That approach tends to be reserved for gods that are literally impossible (e.g. gods whose attributes are internally inconsistent).

The most common approach that I've seen is to basically argue that the theist should take a positivist stance on the issue of gods (or, sometimes, that they should consistently apply the positivist stance they use in other areas of their life by applying it to gods as well) and not accept gods without justification. That's the point of analogies like Russell's Teapot and Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage: we don't have to outright disprove an idea to legitimately give it no credence.

Fair point. It's unfortunate that it seems some folks assume that theists don't have justification - and perhaps that's why such comparisons get tiresome.

I have seen a bunch of bold "God doesn't exist" claims, though... isn't that in some ways analogous to trying to "disprove" these things?

 

[Quintessence]

Why do theists spend so much more time defending their ideologies than actually trying to prove them?

Honestly, I don't spend much time doing either of these things, as I am not interested in doing either of these things and have no reason to be doing them. Tends to happen when one's theistic religion doesn't believe people must embrace your tradition in order to be "saved" or "acceptable" or whatever. So I think you forgot the word "some" in that sentence there, sir.

 

[LuisDantas]

When did an argument against theism become necessary in the first place?

The very idea is somewhat odd. Theism is an arbitrary, personal belief and part of it is that it can't very well be evidenced against. Specific forms of it can, but theism itself is just too vague.

Unless there is some form of assumption that theism should be pushed on those not inclined to take it on their own, of course. Then the argument against theism is that it should not be abused and treated as if it were a Truth as opposed to a personal privilege. Or to put it another way, the right for theism is sacrosanct at the individual level - but no less so than the right for atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, theism is an umbrella term, after all. So much so that the term is arguably useless. If someone is using sacred texts of particular religious traditions to argue against that religion (and by extension, the theology of that tradition), it would only apply to the types of theism supported in that religion and its texts, not those outside of its bounds. For example, someone trying to argue Christianity is rubbish by discrediting the Bible would reasonably extend this to a criticism of Christian theology and their particular flavors of theism - stuff like classical monotheism, trinitarianism, etc. It would not reasonably extend to other types of theism, like pantheistic monotheism, autotheism, etc. That said, folks find creative ways of making arguments and connecting interesting dots together...

Okay. I was just trying to figure out how broad or narrow your "types" were.

Fair point. It's unfortunate that it seems some folks assume that theists don't have justification - and perhaps that's why such comparisons get tiresome.

Frankly, it can be very hard for me to stay open to the possibility that theists have rational justification when I've asked theists for their justifications over and over for years and have only ever gotten horribly flawed justifications or no justification at all.

At this point for me, I'd say it isn't an assumption that theists don't have rational justification; it's an induction from a pretty overwhelming set of samples. Any uncertainty in my conclusion just comes down to the limitations I recognize in inductive reasoning: yes, I can't say that all crows are black with perfect certainty until I've seen every crow, but the evidence so far certainly seems to be strongly point in that direction.

I have seen a bunch of bold "God doesn't exist" claims, though... isn't that in some ways analogous to trying to "disprove" these things?

While I'd have to see the specific claim in its context to say for sure, it's worth pointing out that "God-with-a-capital-G" is the name for a specific god... or at least a specific set of god-concepts, so "God does not exist" doesn't necessarily mean "no gods exist."

It's also worth pointing out that because - as you alluded to - the terms "god" and "God" are so poorly defined, it's common for two people who are debating to clarify what each other mean by "god" or "God", hopefully agree on one definition, and then argue on that basis. It's entirely possible that the definition of "God" that these people agree on won't match the definition of "God" of someone else watching or reading the debate... and typically, it isn't meant to.

I also have to quibble about "prove". I think it's very common for people to take ridiculous standards for how we talk about gods that they don't apply to anything else. For instance, I can say "the passenger pigeon is extinct" without anyone ever inferring that this means that I've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that nobody anywhere on Earth has been secretly breeding passenger pigeons.

I frequently see theists try to paint atheists into a false dichotomy: either you can't say anything at all about gods, or any claim you make has to be to a ridiculous, irrational level of certainty.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Honestly, I don't spend much time doing either of these things, as I am not interested in doing either of these things and have no reason to be doing them. Tends to happen when one's theistic religion doesn't believe people must embrace your tradition in order to be "saved" or "acceptable" or whatever. So I think you forgot the word "some" in that sentence there, sir.

I think it's perfectly valid to speak to general impressions of theism without referring to the specific beliefs of every theist.

We can speak to aggregate impacts of a thing without considering the specifics of fringe beliefs, because the net effect is dominated by the effect of the mainstream.

Just as I don't need to worry about someone's antique steam-powered car that's only driven at special events when deciding on the overall impact of the automobile at a policy level, I don't need to worry about one person's unique god-concept when considering the overall impacts of theism. That one person's effect would be less than the rounding error on the effect of, say, neo-Hellenistic paganism, which in turn is less than the rounding error for the effect of any of the Abrahamic religions.

 

[suncowiam]

Honestly, I don't spend much time doing either of these things, as I am not interested in doing either of these things and have no reason to be doing them. Tends to happen when one's theistic religion doesn't believe people must embrace your tradition in order to be "saved" or "acceptable" or whatever. So I think you forgot the word "some" in that sentence there, sir.

The point was that religioners and theists spend an disproportional amount of time defending their beliefs as opposed to proving their beliefs.

So yeah, I will say all religioners and theists do this.

I haven't met one religioner or theist successful at proving their beliefs.

If you feel this is an attack or some unreasonable argument, then I urge you to reconsider what logic means and the proper use of it.

Going door to door and stating that the world can not disprove a notion is a far cry from actually proving something.

It's a fair request to simply ask for proof. Until a solid amount of proof, there can never be an agreement to end this debate. So we'll see the same debates to eternity which is not beneficial to anyone.

Luis mentioned that theism is a personally notion. I can agree with that. One doesn't have to prove anything but then one should stop defending it and pushing to the world. That, not all religioners/theists do.

 

[Quintessence]

Okay. I was just trying to figure out how broad or narrow your "types" were.

LOL... I have no idea. I don't even think about it that way. We can compartmentalize things however we like for the sake of a given discussion.

Frankly, it can be very hard for me to stay open to the possibility that theists have rational justification when I've asked theists for their justifications over and over for years and have only ever gotten horribly flawed justifications or no justification at all.

I guess I find that hard to believe, but if that's your experience, that's your experience. Perhaps I should have added in there that in discussions like this, people on both sides of the fence simply don't listen to each other's justifications. Instead of just listening, they judge the reasons they give "not good enough" or "horribly flawed" as you put it, and then don't consider it a justification. That's something I find a touch unfortunate, because it speaks to a lack of respectfulness on both sides.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess I find that hard to believe, but if that's your experience, that's your experience.

If you haven't personally been convinced by other people's claims of gods and the supernatural, then I'd say it's probably yoyr experience, too.

Perhaps I should have added in there that in discussions like this, people on both sides of the fence simply don't listen to each other's justifications. Instead of just listening, they judge the reasons they give "not good enough" or "horribly flawed" as you put it, and then don't consider it a justification. That's something I find a touch unfortunate, because it speaks to a lack of respectfulness on both sides.

So you assume I don't listen to theistic claims? Why?

I spend a lot of time trying to listen to and understand theistic claims about their gods. I would like very much to not believe that the majority of people are irrational about their most deeply-held beliefs. In fact, the hope that I can find some way to believe this is one of the big reasons why I stay a member here: I feel like leaving would be a sign that I had given up hope that theists would ever give a rational reason for their beliefs.