Numbered "Fallacious Theist Arguments" Rebutted

Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Numbered "Fallacious Theist Arguments" Rebutted

I'd like to use this thread as a place to post your rebuttals to our numbered theist arguments. Other members will critique our entries (preferrably by private message or e-mail) and we will update our rebuttals in-thread.

Does that sound okay to everyone?

I'm going to try to get a first-draft rebuttal of Pascal's Wager done in the next few days. I have to fit in music theory homework and fixing a client's computer, but I'll try. Smiling

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Something quick Quote: 7.

Something quick

Quote:
7. "The burden of proof is on he who denies."

 

good, now you can help us disprove all the gods you don't believe in.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote: I'd

Iruka Naminori wrote:

I'd like to use this thread as a place to post your rebuttals to our numbered theist arguments. Other members will critique our entries (preferrably by private message or e-mail) and we will update our rebuttals in-thread.

Does that sound okay to everyone?

I'm going to try to get a first-draft rebuttal of Pascal's Wager done in the next few days. I have to fit in music theory homework and fixing a client's computer, but I'll try. Smiling

 

I think we have a few versions of it on our site:

Here's mine:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/pascals_wager

Here is another:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/refutation_of_pascals_wager_by_massimo_pigliucci

There is also the atheist's wager:

 

The Atheist's Wager is an atheistic response to Pascal's Wager. While Pascal suggested that it is better to take the chance of believing in a God that might not exist rather than to risk losing infinite happiness by disbelieving in a god that does, the Atheist's Wager suggests that:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

 (from wiki)

Here is an excellent refutation of the argument that demonstrates that only atheists can go to heaven!:

 http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/heaven.html

 

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
It ended up there was too

It ended up there was too much computer work and too much music theory homework.  It's almost 8 p.m.  I've been working all day--big achievement for me--and I'm POOPED.

Pascal's Wager will have to wait. 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
As is often the case, I

As is often the case, I have more to do than I can handle.  Pththt.  I need to catch up in music theory and review what we've covered thus far.  There's a test this week.

 I'm still thinking about Pascal's Wager (and how sucky it is). :P 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Music theory? Does that

Music theory? Does that prove music doesn't really exist? Eye-wink


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Music

MattShizzle wrote:
Music theory? Does that prove music doesn't really exist? Eye-wink

Music theory states that:

P=H

P meaning the popularity of a band.

and H meaning the horridness of the band's music. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
The most horrific cacophony

The most horrific cacophony known to man.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote: Music

MattShizzle wrote:
Music theory? Does that prove music doesn't really exist? Eye-wink

LOL!

One of my music professors is a creationist.  He tried to proselytize me once and said, "Evolution is just a theory." To which I replied, "You teach music theory at the college.  Does that mean music doesn't exist?"

 In a typically fundy move, he caught me at a time when I was weakened.  I should never have trusted his promise to keep his religion to himself.  That was one of the few good jabs I got in because my head was reeling with his attacks and the feeling of having been betrayed.  

Oh well.

Live and learn.  

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


KevenJ
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Evolution is a scientific

Evolution is a scientific theory. Much like the Theory of Gravity, which we've found out to be proven wrong. I'm not saying that it is wrong, just saying that you can't prove it beyond all doubt.


Symok
Symok's picture
Posts: 63
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
KevenJ wrote: Evolution is

KevenJ wrote:
Evolution is a scientific theory. Much like the Theory of Gravity, which we've found out to be proven wrong. I'm not saying that it is wrong, just saying that you can't prove it beyond all doubt.

I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is... 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Symok wrote: I'm not sure

Symok wrote:

I'm not sure what the point you're trying to make is...

I used to be a fundy, so I still speak it fluently.  KevenJ is displaying typical fundy ignorance of the differences between a scientific hypothesis and a scientific theory.  My scientific "education" consisted almost entirely of debunking the theory of evolution, so I'm pretty familiar with the rhetoric of ignorance.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Because fundamentalist Christianity failed to give me a decent scientific education I've been trying to educate myself.  I find evolutionary biology and paleontology endlessly fascinating. 

Note to self: if mistaking a scientific theory for a scientific hypothesis is not already on our list of fallacious theistic arguments, add it.

BTW, I think it might be a good idea to put a "Freethinkers ONLY" sign next to this particular forum.  I don't think it's very clear to theists that they aren't supposed to post in "Freethinking Anonymous." Whenever a theist enters one of our discussions it gets totally off-track because we rush to debunk some argument we've heard a million times...sigh.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
How has the theory of

How has the theory of gravity been proven wrong? Has someone floated off and I didn't hear about it?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


KevenJ
Theist
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Einstein's General Theory of

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. I don't remember all the details, but apparently gravity doesn't work exactly the way Newton thought it did. Something about travelling at the speed of light or some such.


Allex Spires
Allex Spires's picture
Posts: 9
Joined: 2006-10-01
User is offlineOffline
KevenJ wrote: Einstein's

KevenJ wrote:
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. I don't remember all the details, but apparently gravity doesn't work exactly the way Newton thought it did. Something about travelling at the speed of light or some such.

 

Gravity in the classroom.  Take a tall pot filled a third of the way with water  and put it on high heat to boil.  Stirring it will cause the mollecules to move faster and it'll boil faster.  Keep stirring it.  Now take out whatever you'd been stirring it with and watch the water.  It keeps spinning and the boil bubbles all stay at the canter.  This is because the heat pressure pulls everything toward the center and keeps it there, this isn't perfect gravity but it'll spin for a while.

Einstein and gravity:

Sitting at his post in the Bern patent office one day in 1907, Albert Einstein imagined how a housepainter would experience gravity if he fell off a roof. The success of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity had prompted requests for more articles on the subject. As he rewrote the original work, Einstein thought about ways to expand his theory to include the presence of gravity.

On that day, the physicist's daydream ended with what he later called his "happiest moment." He surmised that the unlucky painter would feel weightless when accelerating toward the ground. This clue led Einstein to reason that gravity and acceleration must be equivalent. Called the "equivalence principle," this idea was the seed that—over the next nine years—bloomed into Einstein's masterpiece, the "General Theory of Relativity." This new theory laid the foundation for relativistic astrophysics and modern cosmology.

 -----

Good job, KevinJ, you have a brain the size of the internet and can't think. 

 

All expires.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Dammit! My time has been

Dammit!

My time has been very much consumed by fixing computers and learning music.  I really do want to do this, but I'm having a hard time finding room in my schedule.

If someone wants to tackle another number, do it!  Dibs on whatever's after 1. Pascal's Wager

I was thinking that common themes should be threaded throughout the arguments:

  1. It is the responsibility of the claimant to provide proof.
  2. Logical fallacies. (For example, saying that any evidence against evolution proves creationism is a false dichotomy [I think], with a link to a page that explains what a false dichotomy is.)
  3. ? Ideas 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Apokalipse
Apokalipse's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
KevinJ wrote:

KevinJ wrote:
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. I don't remember all the details, but apparently gravity doesn't work exactly the way Newton thought it did. Something about travelling at the speed of light or some such.
You really need to learn more about Gravity, and evolution.

 

First and foremost, there is a difference between gravity, and gravity theory.

there is also a difference between evolution, and evolution theory.

 

we know that evolution occurs. we also know that gravity occurs.

the theories of both, are the explanations of how. They haven't been proven wrong. they just have some errors which are being fixed.

 

As for gravity: Newton did not postulate how gravity works. he only postulated that it happens, and found some very accurate mathematics to predict its behaviour.

The only thing Newton didn't (and couldn't) know at the time, was that the mathematics decreased in accuracy when dealing with extremely large gravitational fields, such as black holes. Einstein created a new set of mathematical laws better describing the gravitational fields when they are much stronger.

 

The same goes for Kinematics; Newton was not wrong with his mathematics on kinematics. They just decrease in accuracy as velocities approach the speed of light. Again, something Newton didn't and couldn't know at the time.

 

Now, back to evolution.

Evolution is a fact.
What is evolution?

I can explain what evolution is in seven words:

the change in genetic frequency over time.

That's all.

 

We know that genetic frequency changes over time. It is a well-documented, scientifically proven, irrefutable fact.

 

the theory of evolution is different. it is the explanation of how genetic frequency changes over time.

This includes, but is not limited to, natural selection, and genetic mutations.

 

Also, you clearly misunderstand the idea of a theory.

 

a theory is built upon the facts and the evidence that we have.

theories are not theories unless they are backed up by scientific evidence.

 

a hypothesis is different. a hypothesis is an explanation which seems to fit the facts, but is not backed up by evidence.

 

evolution theory, and gravity theory, are not hypotheses. they are built entirely upon the scientific evidence we have.

 

Now that I've completely knocked that out of the sky, let's move on... 


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Responses to Hell being the

Responses to Hell being the equivalent of a parent punishing a child:

1. When a parent punishes a child, the intent is to get them to learn something and behave better - how can someone learn something and get better by being in hell, since it lasts forever?

2. An eternity of torture is way out of proportion to any punishment even the most abusive parent in history has used.

3. Hell for disbelief - if God really was that offended by people not believing in him, why did he make it so difficult to believe he exists? He easily could have provided real evidence!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team