Poor Arguments against Theism

[1137]

If we're talking about value judgements or aesthetic preferences, sure: there can be multiple reasonable views.

For factual matters, though, why wouldn't you accept a claim that you think is justified? If you've considered the claim and disagree with it, isn't this a sign you've found some sort of fault with it?

But just look through the forum to see how people justify their god-beliefs. You can't swing a cat in here without hitting three threads-worth of different versions of the logically fallacious cosmological argument, equaly fallacious inferences of "design", or people making unjustified arguments from personal experience.

I've seen all sorts of ways that people have tried to justify their belief in their gods. I've yet to see a single one that actually makes sense when we look at it in detail.

What's fallacious about accepting cause and effect? It seems pretty clear that cause and effect occurs, do we just throw logic out and accept infinite regress? And what arguments for design are you talking about exactly? As for personal experience, hi there special pleading! Luckily people like doctors, counselors, and mandated reports don't stick with this idea that personal experience is invalid.

 

[suncowiam]

Fantastic, an example illustrating another of my "straw men":

“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 andadapt 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 might as well use this argument for anything that hasn't been proven or can't be proven. I asked you before if that was a productive use of logic.

We'll just debate this endlessly without any conclusion.

Folks that make claims and want to influence others should really try to prove those claims. Otherwise, its ok to have "personal" beliefs until you can provide proof.

I'm not judging anyone for having different beliefs. Its when they push their beliefs onto others without any supporting evidence.

Don't just quote a single comment. Read all my comments and see if that helps.

 

[1137]

You might as well use this argument for anything that hasn't been proven or can't be proven. I asked you before if that was a productive use of logic.

We'll just debate this endlessly without any conclusion.

Folks that make claims and want to influence others should really try to prove those claims. Otherwise, its ok to have "personal" beliefs until you can provide proof.

I'm not judging anyone for having different beliefs. Its when they push their beliefs onto others without any supporting evidence.

Don't just quote a single comment. Read all my comments and see if that helps.

I was simply pointing out your use of an A/E statement where an I or O should have been used.

 

[viole]

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.

Contradictions in Holy books just prove that those Holy Books are unreliable. Nothing more, nothing less. It is obvious that they do not defeat theism, since it is entirely possible to postulate a god that never inspired any Holy Book.

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.

I agree. Even though god and Mother Goose have the same evidence, Mother Goose has the advantage of being better defined and easier to knowck down.

It is indeed more difficult to knock down something that is defined as good as khbmhbcmhcbmsdhvb.

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.

True. i am biased against the objective existence of Mickey Mouse. Oops. Silly me.

“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.

i would never claim that no theistic argument will be unsound. i can only claim that the current ones are unsound, and provably so.

“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.

Sure. Like that tea pot. Or like invisible angels carrying planets around who can be obvious defeaters of naturalism.

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?”

i make the assumption you mean sound logical arguments. Since there isn't any, i am not sure why we should require evidence to supersede something that does not hold water, anyway.

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.

That is clearly not an argument against theism. It is, at best, an argument against A.

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.

I agree that faith can be seen as believing beyond what reason and evidence confirm. That is what faith is. i am not sure why theists insist in "logical" arguments, then, if that defeats that premise.

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).

Since what we observe seems to confirm naturalism, and everything else is not observed, or observable because it is beyond reason or evidence (see previous point), then it is rational to do that.

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.

Sure. i cannot exclude that in the future we will not evolve into Donald Ducks either. Which I am sure it is a good argument for the possibility of an evolutionary teleology towards Donald Duck.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1137]

Contradictions in Holy books just prove that those Holy Books are unreliable. Nothing more, nothing less. It is obvious that they do not defeat theism, since it is entirely possible to postulate a god that never inspired any Holy Book.



I agree. Even though god and Mother Goose have the same evidence, Mother Goose has the advantage of being better defined and easier to knowck down.

It is indeed more difficult to knock down something that is defined as good as khbmhbcmhcbmsdhvb.



True. i am biased against the objective existence of Mickey Mouse. Oops. Silly me.



i would never claim that no theistic argument will be unsound. i can only claim that the current ones are unsound, and provably so.




Sure. Like that tea pot. Or like invisible angels carrying planets around who can be obvious defeaters of naturalism.



i make the assumption you mean sound logical arguments. Since there isn't any, i am not sure why we should require evidence to supersede something that does not hold water, anyway.



That is clearly not an argument against theism. It is, at best, an argument against A.



I agree that faith can be seen as believing beyond what reason and evidence confirm. That is what faith is. i am not sure why theists insist in "logical" arguments, then, if that defeats that premise.




Since what we observe seems to confirm naturalism, and everything else is not observed, or observable because it is beyond reason or evidence (see previous point), then it is rational to do that.




Sure. i cannot exclude that in the future we will not evolve into Donald Ducks either. Which I am sure it is a good argument for the possibility of an evolutionary teleology towards Donald Duck.

Ciao

- viole

I've always loved this LaVey quote:

"The person who takes every opportunity to "pick on" others is often mistakenly called "sadistic". In reality, this person is a misdirected masochist who is working towards his own destruction. The reason a person viciously strikes out against you is because they are afraid of you or what you represent, or are resentful of your happiness. They are weak, insecure, and on extremely shaky ground."

 

[columbus]

Contradictions in Holy books just prove that those Holy Books are unreliable. Nothing more, nothing less. It is obvious that they do not defeat theism, since it is entirely possible to postulate a god that never inspired any Holy Book.



I agree. Even though god and Mother Goose have the same evidence, Mother Goose has the advantage of being better defined and easier to knowck down.

It is indeed more difficult to knock down something that is defined as good as khbmhbcmhcbmsdhvb.



True. i am biased against the objective existence of Mickey Mouse. Oops. Silly me.



i would never claim that no theistic argument will be unsound. i can only claim that the current ones are unsound, and provably so.




Sure. Like that tea pot. Or like invisible angels carrying planets around who can be obvious defeaters of naturalism.



i make the assumption you mean sound logical arguments. Since there isn't any, i am not sure why we should require evidence to supersede something that does not hold water, anyway.



That is clearly not an argument against theism. It is, at best, an argument against A.



I agree that faith can be seen as believing beyond what reason and evidence confirm. That is what faith is. i am not sure why theists insist in "logical" arguments, then, if that defeats that premise.




Since what we observe seems to confirm naturalism, and everything else is not observed, or observable because it is beyond reason or evidence (see previous point), then it is rational to do that.




Sure. i cannot exclude that in the future we will not evolve into Donald Ducks either. Which I am sure it is a good argument for the possibility of an evolutionary teleology towards Donald Duck.

Ciao

- viole

Viole is so good at laying this sort of thing out with impeccable logic.
I vote for her as Queen of RF nontheists.
Tom

 

[viole]

I've always loved this LaVey quote:

"The person who takes every opportunity to "pick on" others is often mistakenly called "sadistic". In reality, this person is a misdirected masochist who is working towards his own destruction. The reason a person viciously strikes out against you is because they are afraid of you or what you represent, or are resentful of your happiness. They are weak, insecure, and on extremely shaky ground."

Is that a rebuttal?

And what do you mean with my own destruction? Do you think I am working towards my own destruction, because I dissect things that have the same plausibility of existing as Superman?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Quintessence]

Well yeah. If the term was used properly it would indeed help with these problems. But what would an atheist like you do if they had to actually attack the positions of theists like me, rather than statistically normal theists? I doubt that Dawkins and Hitchens provided any attacks for less mainstream religions.

Hah... I don't know about calling classical monotheism the "statistically normal theist" particularly when the religions with elements of that theology are pretty heterogenous in how they interpret things.

It seems sometimes the response is one like this. While understandable, the major problem I have with it is that the "general impression of theism" that people in countries like America gets is not representational. If we want to be more objective and impartial in assessing this thing called "theism," Americans need to get outside of the Christian, classical monotheist box and pay attention to the theologies that dominate other parts of the world and that dominated for most of human history. Unfortunately, this is not a simple demand, as Western academia has disproportionately focused on classical monotheisms, so even if you want to research other religions and theologies, it is difficult to find good sources for that as there is simply less of it out there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What's fallacious about accepting cause and effect?

Do you mean the cosmological argument? Give your version of it and I'll point out the fallacies.

And what arguments for design are you talking about exactly?

The fine tuning argument, intelligent design, etc. Our many "DNA proves God" threads are good examples.

As for personal experience, hi there special pleading! Luckily people like doctors, counselors, and mandated reports don't stick with this idea that personal experience is invalid.

I'm talking about personal experience like "I know God exists because I felt him during a mystical experience" and the like. I'm not talking about experience as in working in a profession for a long time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've always loved this LaVey quote:

"The person who takes every opportunity to "pick on" others is often mistakenly called "sadistic". In reality, this person is a misdirected masochist who is working towards his own destruction. The reason a person viciously strikes out against you is because they are afraid of you or what you represent, or are resentful of your happiness. They are weak, insecure, and on extremely shaky ground."

So then why do you lash out at atheists?

 

[McBell]

I've always loved this LaVey quote:

"The person who takes every opportunity to "pick on" others is often mistakenly called "sadistic". In reality, this person is a misdirected masochist who is working towards his own destruction. The reason a person viciously strikes out against you is because they are afraid of you or what you represent, or are resentful of your happiness. They are weak, insecure, and on extremely shaky ground."

Please see post #98

 

[1137]

So then why do you lash out at atheists?

Because I'm an egotist and like easy victories

 

[viole]

Viole is so good at laying this sort of thing out with impeccable logic.
I vote for her as Queen of RF nontheists.
Tom

Much too kind

Ciao

- viole

 

[jonathan180iq]

I've always loved this LaVey quote:

"The person who takes every opportunity to "pick on" others is often mistakenly called "sadistic". In reality, this person is a misdirected masochist who is working towards his own destruction. The reason a person viciously strikes out against you is because they are afraid of you or what you represent, or are resentful of your happiness. They are weak, insecure, and on extremely shaky ground."

Does this equally apply to your constant creation of threads against what you view as atheistic positions?

 

[1137]

Does this equally apply to your constant creation of threads against what you view as atheistic positions?

If you don't adhere to the fallacious reasoning in the OP, I can't imagine how you would feel bullied or treated sadistically. Usually when the truth is ones actual concern, they'll share a disdain for poor argumentation. I know I sure hate certain arguments, such as that from fine tuning, but not to the point where I'll pretend theists don't make it because they're free of poor reasoning.

 

[1137]

Do you mean the cosmological argument? Give your version of it and I'll point out the fallacies.

The most common one I've heard is that not all things can be contingent, and so there must be something non-contingent, an uncaused cause. Where is the fallacy?

The fine tuning argument, intelligent design, etc. Our many "DNA proves God" threads are good examples.

Agreed, I can't stand fine tuning type arguments.

I'm talking about personal experience like "I know God exists because I felt him during a mystical experience" and the like. I'm not talking about experience as in working in a profession for a long time.

I think a lot of times personal experience is, well, personal. Many theists don't seem willing to use it as objective evidence, or are hesitant to even share details. But I did not mean experience as in working in a profession for a long time. I mean when a client goes to a doctor or counselor, the doctor does not discard their personal experience (stabbing pain, feeling achy, feeling sad, feeling angry) based on it being subjective. In fact, they start with an experience.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If you don't adhere to the fallacious reasoning in the OP, I can't imagine how you would feel bullied or treated sadistically. Usually when the truth is ones actual concern, they'll share a disdain for poor argumentation. I know I sure hate certain arguments, such as that from fine tuning, but not to the point where I'll pretend theists don't make it because they're free of poor reasoning.

If your stance is that atheists are sometimes prone to poorly reasoned arguments, then you can have that one all day long.

I'm referring, however, in this case to directly quoting Viole by indirectly accusing her of what your quote implies. If you were not doing so, then I don't see the relevance of the response at all - This leads me to assume that you were, in fact, attempting to accuse her of picking on others (you) in a self-defeating way, which also implies that her atheist position on certain topics is weak...

It's a cute little jab, right?

What I'm asking is why your intended quote does not equally apply to you, and your known stream of creating threads and posts that constantly attempt to "pick on" naturalist and atheistic positions. Do you do it because you are self-sabotaging yourself, knowing somewhere deep down that your assumed positions are weak, or faulty? If this quote does not apply to you and your forum behavior, why does it apply to her?

These are just questions, after all... I just dislike poor argumentation, and the truth is my actual concern here.

 

[1137]

If your stance is that atheists are sometimes prone to poorly reasoned arguments, then you can have that one all day long.

I'm referring, however, in this case to directly quoting Viole by indirectly accusing her of what your quote implies. If you were not doing so, then I don't see the relevance of the response at all - This leads me to assume that you were, in fact, attempting to accuse her of picking on others (you) in a self-defeating way, which also implies that her atheist position on certain topics is weak...

It's a cute little jab, right?

What I'm asking is why your intended quote does not equally apply to you, and your known stream of creating threads and posts that constantly attempt to "pick on" naturalist and atheistic positions. Do you do it because you are self-sabotaging yourself, knowing somewhere deep down that your assumed positions are weak, or faulty? If this quote does not apply to you and your forum behavior, why does it apply to her?

These are just questions, after all... I just dislike poor argumentation, and the truth is my actual concern here.

I wouldn't really compare logically questioning a position to "picking on it", but hey I'll take that term over being burned alive like the church would have done! If you can't see the childish and insulting nature of Violes post I certainly can't help you.

 

[gnostic]

Eh, I probably just have a bit more respect for careful usage of words because I give a **** about philosophy, about objective truth.

I have seen very little of objective truth in philosophy.

Generally, philosophers are tooting their own horns, hardly make them being impartial.

Truth, therefore becomes coloured by one's own opinion.

 

[Willamena]

I've always loved this LaVey quote:

"The person who takes every opportunity to "pick on" others is often mistakenly called "sadistic". In reality, this person is a misdirected masochist who is working towards his own destruction. The reason a person viciously strikes out against you is because they are afraid of you or what you represent, or are resentful of your happiness. They are weak, insecure, and on extremely shaky ground."

Describes Trump to a tee.