Stupid Atheism

[JacobEvans]

All types of people have their idiots, who would think Atheists are any different?
I think part of the problem with the classification of Atheists rests in the general vagueness of it. As an agnostic atheist, it makes my skin crawl when ever I hear some numbskull attempting to debunk religious beliefs with terrible arguments, especially any arguments claiming that deities do not exist.

So I say we come up with a list of bad Atheist arguments that we can't stand to hear.

I'll start...

"Well you just believe in fairy tales (No explanation of WHY they think it's a fairy tail given.)"
"There is no God (when said with implied certainty (as if it were known instead just the likely answer))"
"I just don't believe that God would (Insert evil deed here)"


Again, these are arguments people use to attempt to debunk religion, so make the list form around this context.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You have to be really careful with the "'God' is a meanie" one... it implies that there IS such a thing, and you just don't like it.

"Science disproves 'God'" is a bad one, on account of science doing no such thing, especially in any sort of absolute way.

 

[nemesiss]

perhaps if humans start to make less issues on what someone else should believe, then we might not need to have stupid arguments.


i dont mind someone believing in fairies, goblin, elvis, you mother, etc... as long as they don't demand me to live by their rules for no reason.
we have had the whole "believe in my god or i'll kill you" thing and you'd think we have grown up by now, but somehow we still haven't.

if some christian (or more recently a muslim) barges is and claims a god exists (which is one thing), then states that atheists are idiots, delusional and immoral... yeah, thats picking a fight.
then you get these topics of data throwing for a god and against a god, but no definite answer.

and then blaming atheists for replying?
nah, thats just silly.
if; i were to come to your house with a baseball bat and smash things that you hold precious and then you do nothing? i seriously doubt that.


as for the whole god of the gaps things.
its one thing so say we dont know, its another thing to pretend a god did it.
as example; the eye (which has always been always a creationist favorite), for that we have a very good scientific explination.
as for the first living organism, well... there you can fill in a god since we haven't gotten THE answer yet, we have some... but nothing conclusive.
HOWEVER!!, that doesn't mean we should stop looking just like that.

 

[nasher168]

I dislike how so many people I know don't actually put any thought into such an important issue. Many just say they are atheist because it's a majority position (for people my age). It came up in biology last year and almost every person on the atheist side couldn't defend themselves at all. It was just me and two others who could actually make a defensible position against the christians in the class-and the other two were both RS students anyway.

 

[xman]

...especially any arguments claiming that deities do not exist.

But they don't. Just as the theist 'knows' his god, I know he's deluded. Granted this is a bad way to argue, but what makes it an inappropriate retort to the theist who claims with the same authority? It only pushes the debate into "yes there is", "no there isn't", but that's all most of the creationists understand anyway. Personally, I get so tired of my well reasoned arguments being completely lost on some theistic numb skull who doesn't know how to think.

 

[DrunkCat]

To be honest, there will always be a majority who don't understand whatever the hell they're backing up. So I don't see the real issue with it, especially considering it's easier to talk to and educate someone who at least made the leap to the 'atheist' affiliation.

 

[borrofburi]

I see a lot of arguments that "straw man" theism; while most of us are here because we all recognize theism as a poor approximation of reality, you gain nothing to "straw man" it, even if it's bad to start with (especially since, if it's bad to start with, then there should be no problem giving it the highest respect, the best possible position you can give it, before you show why that's a bad interpretation of reality). I'll remember this thread and post them as I see them though.

Just as the theist 'knows' his god, I know he's deluded.

But you don't. You may have a lot of good evidence to indicate he's *probably* deluded, but that's all you know: that he's probably deluded. You can't know that his personal experience with god isn't actually real; you can know all the brain chemistry, all the psychology, etc. as to why that specific event was probably a fluke of the chemicals in the brain, but again, all you know is that it was *probably* a fluke, you don't know for certain that it wasn't real.

 

[bruhaha2]

"I just don't believe that God would (Insert evil deed here)"

I agree this isn't a valid argument, but questioning the Christian God's motives was what led me to question my beliefs. It's how my becoming an atheist started.

I submit that atheists who define atheism as the lack of something, aren't being very reasonable. In saying something IS the LACK of something, they're saying something is nothing. Atheism is something, and that something is the belief in no God. It's not a claim that there "IS NOT" a God or Gods, it means "why would there be?"

To be honest, there will always be a majority who don't understand whatever the hell they're backing up. So I don't see the real issue with it, especially considering it's easier to talk to and educate someone who at least made the leap to the 'atheist' affiliation.

Agreed, though I wish it wasn't so.

 

[borrofburi]

I submit that atheists who define atheism as the lack of something, aren't being very reasonable. In saying something IS the LACK of something, they're saying something is nothing. Atheism is something, and that something is the belief in no God. It's not a claim that there "IS NOT" a God or Gods, it means "why would there be?"

I disagree, or alternatively am not an atheist: I lack belief in god, I do not believe in no god. I agree that makes "atheist' a somewhat silly term, just as silly as "nonstampcollector"; however there are a *ton* of stamp collectors (like the vast majority of people) and it makes sense for me to have a term to distinguish myself from the hobby that nearly everyone has (/metaphor in case anyone missed that).

 

[Giant Blue Anteater]

"There is no God (when said with implied certainty (as if it were known instead just the likely answer))"

Indeed, anybody who walks up to any random religious person and tell them "God is fake!" is just as irrational as those who do the same only they say God is real.

 

[bruhaha2]

I submit that atheists who define atheism as the lack of something, aren't being very reasonable. In saying something IS the LACK of something, they're saying something is nothing. Atheism is something, and that something is the belief in no God. It's not a claim that there "IS NOT" a God or Gods, it means "why would there be?"

I disagree, or alternatively am not an atheist: I lack belief in god, I do not believe in no god. I agree that makes "atheist' a somewhat silly term, just as silly as "nonstampcollector"; however there are a *ton* of stamp collectors (like the vast majority of people) and it makes sense for me to have a term to distinguish myself from the hobby that nearly everyone has (/metaphor in case anyone missed that).

Well, I hope you would be reasonable enough to say you believe there is a God, instead of claiming to know. But yeah, the people that go around saying atheism is the lack of a belief also end up saying they were an atheist 2 billion years ago, or that a rock is an atheist, or a baby is an atheist. Anything that is not a theist and not an atheist is a non-theist or a non-atheist. Non-theist and atheist are not interchangeable. An atheist is a non-theist, but so is a rock. saying something is not something says nothing about what it is.

There are plenty of people who tend to accept this definition, plenty of those that say a chair is an atheist. While it's true a chair is not a theist, not a theist is not what it is, just what it is not.

Non-theism isn't anything, neither is non-atheism. It just means nothing is the default regarding the idea of God. I try to help people who hold this definition to understand what I mean, but it ends up like an argument with a theist; never saying why something is, just saying that it is so.

***EDIT: Ah, you were saying you're not a theist. Well, indeed that is only true for what you are not (casein point: not a stamp collector). The problem is (this is not going to make much sense, but alas, I will say it), because the idea of God is present in the mind, a person could never say they were a non-theist unless they were an atheist.

That would be about as ridiculous as some remote tribe who had never heard of, or thought up the idea of God, and they went around spouting out they were non-theists. That's like saying, "I am not a gargleschmeck". What the hell is a gargleschmeck? If I don't know, how do I know I am not one? If this tribe went around saying, "I don't believe in god," they would just be saying a random assortment of words that just happen to make sense to you and me. As it is, an atheist is one who believes in no God because an atheist's reaction to the idea of one is, "Why would there be a God?" If the so called reasons are not evident enough, you don't believe it is true, you believe it is false. A belief and a claim are not the same, and belief isn't knowledge.

 

[borrofburi]

I disagree, or alternatively am not an atheist: I lack belief in god, I do not believe in no god. I agree that makes "atheist' a somewhat silly term, just as silly as "nonstampcollector"; however there are a *ton* of stamp collectors (like the vast majority of people) and it makes sense for me to have a term to distinguish myself from the hobby that nearly everyone has (/metaphor in case anyone missed that).

Well, I hope you would be reasonable enough to say you believe there is a God, instead of claiming to know. But yeah, the people that go around saying atheism is the lack of a belief also end up saying they were an atheist 2 billion years ago, or that a rock is an atheist, or a baby is an atheist. Anything that is not a theist and not an atheist is a non-theist or a non-atheist. Non-theist and atheist are not interchangeable. An atheist is a non-theist, but so is a rock. saying something is not something says nothing about what it is.

There are plenty of people who tend to accept this definition, plenty of those that say a chair is an atheist. While it's true a chair is not a theist, not a theist is not what it is, just what it is not.

Non-theism isn't anything, neither is non-atheism. It just means nothing is the default regarding the idea of God. I try to help people who hold this definition to understand what I mean, but it ends up like an argument with a theist; never saying why something is, just saying that it is so.

***EDIT: Ah, you were saying you're not a theist. Well, indeed that is only true for what you are not (casein point: not a stamp collector). The problem is (this is not going to make much sense, but alas, I will say it), because the idea of God is present in the mind, a person could never say they were a non-theist unless they were an atheist.

That would be about as ridiculous as some remote tribe who had never heard of, or thought up the idea of God, and they went around spouting out they were non-theists. That's like saying, "I am not a gargleschmeck". What the hell is a gargleschmeck? If I don't know, how do I know I am not one? If this tribe went around saying, "I don't believe in god," they would just be saying a random assortment of words that just happen to make sense to you and me. As it is, an atheist is one who believes in no God because an atheist's reaction to the idea of one is, "Why would there be a God?" If the so called reasons are not evident enough, you don't believe it is true, you believe it is false. A belief and a claim are not the same, and belief isn't knowledge.

I have ended up in this "debate" about what "atheist" means a number of times, and my conclusion is fairly simple: I don't care. I long since stopped self-identifying as atheist to other people because all the christians hear is "a homosexual satan lover who hates god and will rape my dog and eat my babies", and about 10% of atheists hear "one who believes there is no god", and as such I have found that the word "atheist" often fails to communicate my meaning (nor, incidentally, does "non-theist", which is why I have rejected that term as well), thus I find the word to be ineffective (for what is the purpose of words if not to communicate meaning?).

And I agree: I and a rock are both as much non/a-theist as we are both non-stampcollectors, and I agree that these terms would simply have no meaning if it were not for the abundance of theists/stampcollectors in this world, though of course I slightly differ from the rock in that further evidence could make me a theist, just as further stamps could make me a stamp collector.

I also reject your dichotomy of "believe it is true or believe it is false".

Anyway, we are *again* getting off-topic and should probably take this to PMs (or, alternatively, make a new topic).

 

[bruhaha2]

I also reject your dichotomy of "believe it is true or believe it is false".

Why? I'm applying this to a proposition. If a proposition fails to present evidence for a person to believe it is true, then it is believed to be false. You can apply this in other areas, but it is always the case when discussing a proposition.

For example: X+Y= Z what is Z?
"I believe Z is 4." The proposition for me to believe this could be anything. I could say it's because my car is red. That obviously isn't a reason to believe Z is 4, so the proposition is false. That doesn't mean Z is not 4.

The problem with this example is the question of existence. The question of existence is, "Is something, or is it not?" The math problem I gave is a question of, "What is something (Z)?" or rather, "Z is something. What is Z?"


With existence, something either is, or is not.

What is God? Most religions define God as the creator of the universe. If I believe the universe was not created, or I believe the universe always existed in whatever state, then I believe the universe lacks creation. I don't believe in a creator, I believe the creator doesn't exist. In other words, I believe there is no God.

This doesn't mean I know there is no God. The only way I could think to show that there is no God, would be to show that the Universe is eternal. I don't believe this is possible. I don't know that it's impossible, but I believe it is. How could anyone demonstrate eternity?

That's the point I'm trying to make. No one's putting words in your mouth.,

 

[xman]

I see a lot of arguments that "straw man" theism; while most of us are here because we all recognize theism as a poor approximation of reality, you gain nothing to "straw man" it, even if it's bad to start with (especially since, if it's bad to start with, then there should be no problem giving it the highest respect, the best possible position you can give it, before you show why that's a bad interpretation of reality). I'll remember this thread and post them as I see them though.

Just as the theist 'knows' his god, I know he's deluded.

But you don't. You may have a lot of good evidence to indicate he's *probably* deluded, but that's all you know: that he's probably deluded. You can't know that his personal experience with god isn't actually real; you can know all the brain chemistry, all the psychology, etc. as to why that specific event was probably a fluke of the chemicals in the brain, but again, all you know is that it was *probably* a fluke, you don't know for certain that it wasn't real.

Agreed, but I still use the 'bad' language from time to time.

 

[DeistPaladin]

This thread wasn't what I thought it was going to be about. Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you're rational. Atheism only precludes a belief in any gods. That still leaves the field open to believe in all kinds of crazy, stupid or bigoted things.

Now most atheists I know are what I would consider to be rational but there are a few notable exceptions. I'm sure we all know a few.

 

[Giant Blue Anteater]

Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you're rational.

Now most atheists I know are what I would consider to be rational but there are a few notable exceptions. I'm sure we all know a few.

I see what you're talking about, because one time, a good friend of mine, who is a quasi-famous artist from Turkey, received a comment on one of his works (which was a cladogram of pixel organisms) telling him to "shut the fuck up about religion" because he "sounds like an asshole", going on and saying that he is an atheist, but saying "but I don't shove my beleifs on others". He got worked up over the criticism of creationism (which quite frankly deserves to be mocked in every way, shape, and form) in the description section of the work. How rational.

 

[Nogre]

all the christians hear is "a homosexual satan lover who hates god and will rape my dog and eat my babies", and about 10% of atheists hear "one who believes there is no god", and as such I have found that the word "atheist" often fails to communicate my meaning

I get this a lot, too. I'm probably going to just start telling people I'm a PEARList. Except now the conversation will be "What, you worship pearls?" :facepalm: But at least that means people don't associate all manner of bad things with me from the get-go.

As for the OP's question, I think the most absurd argument I often hear is:

X god (or Holy Book, Doctrine, etc.) is absurd, so I'm an atheist.

 

[DrunkCat]

Or you can go what 'pearl'ism is and stick with pantheism. At least it's more widely established.

 

[Nogre]

Or you can go what 'pearl'ism is and stick with pantheism. At least it's more widely established.

Before I respond, define pantheism. Since I don't really understand how believing that the application of physical evidence and reasoned logic gets you closer to the truth is the same as what I understand to be pantheism.

 

[DrunkCat]

Pantheism, (for me anyway, it's rather vague/broad), is essentially that the idea of God is the universe, nature and everything in between. It's not saying that God is physically or anthropomorphically the universe, but the concept of God: omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, etc.

So for me, instead of searching through a bronze age book for answers, I search through nature herself. What is matter made of? Atoms. What are atoms made of? Particles. etc. It's basically acknowledging (reasoning, analyzing) the reality we are living (the universe); which is surprisingly ignored.