When did these stupid phrases become true?
Offline I have a list of a bunch of things that Christians have been saying to me lately. Some of those inspired my first post about the Word of the Week. A bunch of others have inspired this post. Sorry if it's a bit rant-like. I am fed-up with a bunch of Christians that I know. Also, please forgive me for preaching to the choir!
The following are things which I've never known to be true, but somehow apologists get away with using them in debates:
1) Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack - OK, so, I think we can definitively say that if we don't have any evidence for something, then it probably doesn't exist. I agree we can't say it definitely does not exist, but how in the hell does this support their theories of god? It doesn't! Now, I ask them, "What evidence do you have to support your claim?" And they can no longer say, "Well, a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." And I say, "Nor is it evidence in support of your claim, dunce."
2) I believe god exists because it makes me feel better to know that my life has purpose and reason. - This is written about a lot more in my other post about the Word of the Week.
3) Evil is necessary so that we can have free will. - Huh? A person in a different post in the Kill 'em With Kindness forum claims that this is not what he believes, and so it must not be what other people believe (which is, of course, a fallacy in and of itself). I know at least three people who believe exactly the above statement. When choosing between two equally "good" options, where does evil come into play? It doesn't, and it requires free will to choose between them (or at least the illusion of it, depending on your beliefs). In the other post, he claims that the statement should be, "Evil must be allowable for there to be free will, i.e. we must be able to choose it, or else there is no free will." I would reiterate the same question as above - evil played no part in either of the two options as far as you could tell, so it was not necessary to posit that evil was necessary to make the choice at all. (Warning: Am I making a fallacy of extension here? I'm not sure.)
4) Just because something looks really, really bad does not mean that it may not have a positive outcome. - I believe all Nazi Christians use this defense. The evident claim they are making is that the end justifies the means.
5) If god IS all-powerful and omniscient, then god is worth worshipping. - Wrong. Their evident claim here is that "might makes right". IF god were "omnibenevolent", then I may be able to accept this reasoning
6) The Bible's lack of contradictions is evidence of its divine inspiration. - Urgh. Bunch of effing dunces. Listing these out are starting to annoy me. Anyway, no it isn't (evidence of its divine inspiration). Most authors of today can write a book that is longer than the Bible and have it be contradiction-free. That does not make those books true, nor divinely inspired. I admit that if a contradiction were found, then that would be damning evidence. However, lacking contradictions does not support any claim at all about the Bible except that it lacks contradictions. Note: I DO believe there are tons of contradictions in the Bible, but plenty of people are intelligent and creative enough to rationalize their way around them, so I have essentially stopped trying to argue on that front.
7) Religious experience counts as a form of evidence of god. - Most argue this point worse, by saying that it is evidence of a, say, Christian god, but of course that's false, since Muslims and Hindus and even atheists get these experiences in some way or another. However, the argument as listed above is still bad because it presupposes the existence of god (by claiming that something is a religious experience). If we take it that that is still in question (instead of presupposed), then this argument in no way supports the claim of god, and then when we see how many different kinds of people, even atheists, get these types of experiences, it's clear that it does not support god, but argue against it.
Since in the past, Joe Shmoe denied these beliefs, and then suddenly he changed his mind, the resurrection must have occurred. - This is just a funny one I thought I'd add to relieve some of the heaviness of this post. . .oh wait, you mean people actually try to argue this? (A Case for Christ by Lee Strobel does, claiming that the disciples all denied kinship with Jesus, and then suddenly they changed heart and all went out and died for him). This is inadequate reasoning. A person can change their mind for a number of reasons. In any case, if we are trying to prove that god exists, this falls well short of that.
9) The argument from design. - I don't know why ANYONE was EVER impressed by this argument. I have reformulated it to be much funnier, I think: Look at mice. Mice appear to be intelligently designed. Since humans are the only thing we know to be intelligent enough to design things, humans must have designed mice.
10) The argument from first cause. - I'm going to explicitly state this one, cause I have a funny little thing about it. "Everything in the universe has a cause. The universe must have a cause, so we call that first cause god." My response, which I believe I stole from somebody on a message board here: "There exists one thing which did not have a cause. Therefore, not everything has a cause, and we need not posit the existence of a god to bring things into existence." I'm not going to list the contingency argument because it's not really common enough; however, George Smith has a refutation of it in Atheism: The Case Against God.
11) If there is no god, then how can you have any system of morality? - Umm, this is at best a non-sequitur. It seems like this again comes down to an appeal to emotion, by saying that, "You want a system of morality, because otherwise I could just pull out a gun and blow off your head." My boss does that argument all the time, and I hate it. It's so utterly ridiculous. A simple way I've found to beat THEM up with this question is: Do you claim to know that your system of morals is good? If they answer yes, I respond with, "How? If your system of morals is how you decide what is right, then you've argued in a circle." If they answer no, then I say that their system is arbitrary, or at best highly subjective, and they've not gotten over the same hump that many atheists have with this question.
12) Science can't answer these questions, therefore god must exist as the answer to them. - Sorry, that's another false statement based on fallacio (look it up in my other recent post). This is the argument from ignorance based on emotionality. Further, even if they don't claim that god is the answer to them, to claim that there must be an answer for them is inadequate. Such questions are, "Why are we here? What purpose do we have?" etc.
13) If god made us with free will, then we have free will. - Humorously, this statement is self-contradictory, at least when referring to the typical god of Christianity. Why? If god knows everything, then he knows everything we'll ever do before we're born. He knew it even before he created man. In fact, he knew it before the universe came into existence. Somehow, he must have been able to predict it 100% accurately. Regardless of how he did that, since it must be assumed that he did do that, then there was never any possible choices to make for any one of us. An argument for free will from a Christian is an argument for determinism! (Somehow, that makes me laugh really hard!)
14) God uses suffering to bring us closer to him. - This is similar to one in a previous number. This is the "the end justifies the means" argument. Unfortunately, I know a lot of people who suffer because of this and it makes me so sad to see it, to want to crush it, but to want them to be happy so I have to not destroy this belief in them. If god were indeed all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, don't you think he could bring you closer to him without hurting you? Come on now. Seriously people! (I realize I'm preaching to the choir here, I just had to rant today.)
15) Even if atheism is true, what does it have to offer me that religion doesn't already have? - This assumes that religion is true. Since atheism is true, religion cannot also be true, and we must suppose that atheism offers you the truth (if it is true). Of course, that's just one thing. It also offers a worldview which does not require fear as a primary component. This is a powerful idea that some atheists overlook because they were never religious. Speaking as a former devout Catholic, I can say that I was always afraid that something I would do might displease god. Constant fear. That is a bad thing. It breeds irrationalism, to say the least.
16) Christianity was the first religion to encorporate morality into their system of beliefs. - For one, no it wasn't. Obviously Judaism was before that. However, even Judaism wasn't the first. Hinduism had morality tied into it, albeit in somewhat obscure ways (for example, untouchables are not allowed to touch normal people because of their dirtiness, etc). Hinduism probably has other places where it does that; I'm just not aware of them. And Hinduism came along WAY before Judaism. Even if Christianity (or any religion) was the "first" religion to encorporate morality, that in no way validates the religion.
I guess that's all I'll post for now. Thanks for letting me rant.
Kyle
"Jesus -- the other white Moses" - Me.
- Login to post comments
More stupidity they often bring up:
1. Pascal's wager - thorougly pwned elsewhere on this site.
2. You can't see the wind/love/people's brain's, etc - you can see brains with certain devices or by cutting someone's head open, we can measure the wind with instruments, and love is an emotion that only exists within the brain.
3. Using the Buybull to prove itself - Just plain dumb.
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
one my friend uses constantly is that most moderate and liberal christians are good people and I since they dont agree with the phelps' and the falwells out there I should just let them believe what they believe.
Bah-hahaha! Nice. I've never heard of "Buybull" before. I must be lazy, cause that was so good it has to be elsewhere!
I remembered a couple other ones that were inspired by Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer:
1) That part of the Buybull is clearly meant to be metaphor. - Bullflop. For one, it obviously isn't very clear if lots of people are questioning it. For two, if we interpreted the entire Buybull as metaphor, then it would all be true, just like if we interpreted EVERYTHING as metaphor! At the very least, it would be a lot easier to show something true if it was pure metaphor. Hence, arguing for metaphors is arguing against the specificity of the Buybull, which takes it out of the realm of reality and into the realm of fiction.
2) It was written for the people of the time, so the scientific inaccuracies don't matter. - Umm. . .uhh. . .umm. . .what? You are claiming that these people would be unable to understand the truth if it hit them in the face? Or what? This statement is bogus, just as with all the others I listed. It having scientific inaccuracies is a sure sign that it was not created by a god who knows all, but by a human who is quite ignorant and making it up as he goes along. If god were writing it, it did not have to be dumbed down at all - just explained ultimately well so that these people would understand it. There's no reason to assume, either, by the way, that they were particularly stupid back then.
An interesting thing to bring up with the above two statements is that if we hold them to be true, then ANY religion can be shown to be true. It just depends on how much we take as metaphor. The fact that it has many scientific inaccuracies is irrelevant because, hey, those could just be metaphors!
3) God loves us so much that he sent his son to die for us. - This statement has tons of simple flaws in it that it's hilarious. If their claim is somehow that it required a blood sacrifice to open up a channel for salvation for us, I would ask, "WHY!?" Bunch of fools! If god is omnipotent, then he could surely be able to do this without killing someone. But of course, the Buybull is full of places where he clearly does NOT love us, so there's no point in them trying to argue this.
"Jesus -- the other white Moses" - Me.
I changed this quote so that I could add it to my list.
But the essence is still there, I'm sure you'd agree.
To me, that's like saying, "There's no point in arguing with someone who is wrong, as long as they're nice."
Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone at all can rationally defend that position. I guess maybe I'm committing a fallacy here (probably inductive), but if I were to say the following:
A person is going to shoot at you with a bunch of bullets. He won't hit you though. Therefore, you should allow him to shoot bullets at you.
I think you'll get my point. There are WAY too many variables going into this to try to make a guess about it, and I wouldn't risk my ability to reason and let others continue being unreasonable.
"Jesus -- the other white Moses" - Me.
I've had the 'can't see the wind' variant used recently by my brother and his YEC buddy at a family reunion... I felt like banging my head repeatedly.
"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."--Stephen F. Roberts
Yeah, I hate that one. I always get the gravity one from my boss. My standard reply is, "That's a terrible analogy because we have evidence that it exists." Unfortunately, that prompts him to start listing off all the crap that's in the bible. For some reason, as seemingly intelligent as he is, he doesn't understand that he can't use the bible as a historical source without first establishing its credibility (which of course he hasn't done and I'm pretty sure cannot be done). Any way around this?
"Jesus -- the other white Moses" - Me.
I realized something while talking with my awesome atheist cousin-in-law today. It's another one of these things that somehow is argued to be true, but cannot be shown to be true in any meaningful way, just like the whole list.
In trying to prove or disprove god's omnipotence, we can simply ask the child's question: Can god create a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?
This question does not create a contradiction, but why not? The why is actually fairly simple: You have to ASSUME that god is omnipotent to get the contradiction. That means you've assumed the conclusion of the proof. If god were not omnipotent, but was still able to create things, then it would be quite simple for him to create something so heavy that he couldn't lift it.
The important point is that you have to assume the conclusion for there to exist any contradiction because of the question. I believe this is borderline non-cognitivist, but could someone help me on that? I say non-cognitivist because I think as soon as you try to apply an "omni" attribute, you've removed god from the realm of reality and into the realm of fiction. Did I say this already? Probably.
Another interesting, "How did this become true?" statement is: Why shouldn't god be able to contradict logic? He created the entire system, supposedly. If he didn't, if something existed before him (such as the laws of logic), then we need not posit him as the creator of everything. This is similar to the argument above about first cause -- there exists one thing that did not have a cause, therefore not all things have a cause, and we need not posit a god to create all things. What do you all think?
Edit: P.S. I explained to my boss how Judaism was not at all the first religion to incorporate (misspelled up above, damn me) morality into itself, and he said, "Well, it's interesting because it was the first one in its region. Everyone else was going the opposite way." I didn't have my sources handy, or else I would have started referring to the various Babylonian ideas and such. Does anyone know any other religions around that time and region that associate morality with religion? Heh, something hilarious would be to show one that does but the morality in question is the opposite of what Judaism "has" to offer.
"Jesus -- the other white Moses" - Me.
It's amazing how many theist's (in the Abrahamic religions) arguments boil down to "might makes right" (like the book of Job) and "the ends justifies the means". It goes without saying, these are ethically reprehensible.
Here's my $0.02 on a few of these phrases:
The really dishonest, question-begging problem with this argument is saying "science can't". At the least they should say "science doesn't yet". But then the argument falls apart.
Also, give science a break! The modern practice of science hasn't even been around 500 years (starting from Galileo), and much of the import science has been done in the last 100 years. This is a very, very short amount of time. What do they expect?
Easy. For Christians: Sleeping in on Sundays. For Jews: pork, bacon, ribs, ham, etc.
That's because in the ancient world morality was considered to be in the realm of philosophy.
Really well put.
This is actually the key to a decisive checkmate if you can play your hand correctly. (How was that for a mixed metaphor!) If you can stay away from religion just long enough to get a theist to say explicitly that you can't assume a conclusion before the premises, you've won.
That's very tricky, because very few theists are going to admit that in the context of any religious discussion.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Thanks.
I'm sorry; I can't allow that metaphor. I'm a chess player! OK, I'll allow it just this one time, but if I ever read you type it again, I'm going to flip out, go nuts, lose my cool, become religious, you get the picture! (This is related to my next word of the week, which I'm gonna post early because it's so good. Of course, I wouldn't really even get angry
).
This should be fairly easy, actually, to get my Christian friends to admit. They are very, very religious, but most of them value logic a little bit. They abuse it too, very badly, which annoys me.
Case and point, I asked my boss (who is one of my Christian friends) if it was a good thing or a bad thing that a quarter million people died in the big tidal wave over in Indonesia. He said, "Well, we can't really know what the outcome was. It could have, in the long run, been better for humanity. God's plan may be such that it was necessary to develop the rest of the human race." We were talking about morality and I claimed he didn't really have it, at that point, because he was unable to determine such a simple claim: That a huge number of innocent people are dying without any clear aim in sight.
This is why I began this whole thread in the first place. How is it not immediately evident that that tidal wave accomplished nothing good, at the very least? Further, how is it that my boss can claim what he did, and not just come out and say, "Might makes right. The ends justify the means, after all. I'm a douche bag." Well, I've decided he can't. Hence forth, I've been calling him on his stupidity. It has not been good for him. Check for word of the week 2 in just a minute.
"Jesus -- the other white Moses" - Me.
A tougher question than it appears.
The trap in the question is the assumption that there is a consistent meaning to the word "good." Theists will immediately jump into "Equivocate for Jesus" mode, and point out that atheists are the ones who can't come up with a consistent meaning, and therefore, God is necessary to "work a greater good" out of the tidal wave, which admittedly defies human understanding.
In fact, I can easily demonstrate that the tidal wave was a good thing. Watch:
1) Global warming is real, is caused by humans, and kills species of plants and animals.
2) Humanity is causing the extinction of thousands of species of animals and plants.
3) The number of humans on the planet is too large to attain equilibrium with our environment.
4) Humans are not any more entitled to the earth than any other creature, simply because "Might Makes Right." (How'd you like that, eh? Using your argument in my argument... clever...)
5) Therefore, it is wrong for humans to kill other species.
6) Therefore, it is good to stop killing species.
7) Therefore, anything that stops the killing of other species is good.
9) The tsunami made a significant reduction.
10) Therefore the tsunami was good.
Ok. I don't really believe that, but the point is that it's not a hard argument to make, precisely because there is not a set standard by which we can judge such events.
Before you can get into a debate about good/evil with a theist, you must first establish that any and all descriptions of good/evil that a dualist can make are concepts stolen from naturalism. In other words, allow them to fall into their own trap by admitting that:
A) Things that are good are good for a reason.
B) If there is a reason, it is not above nature.
C) Therefore, value judgments are inextricably linked to naturalism.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Well that's a good idea! . . .or is it? I can't tell. I am unable to make judgements about whether or not things are good or evil, due to the fact that I'm an atheist.
GRRRRRR!
P.S. I'm moving this thread to youtube. I feel like it could get a bigger audience there. We'll see what kinds of responses I get! (That is, the original thread, not this latest stuff on good vs evil).
"Jesus -- the other white Moses" - Me.
I like debating theists. It's like watching a fall fashion show.
What will it be this year? Is bible errancy the latest fad, or is it going to be evolution? Or, maybe cosmology. There are so many things to choose from, and so many ways to win. It's like the Globetrotters and that other team... you know, the one that never wins, but just keeps playing against them, even though everyone knows they'll lose...
My current fad du jour is the concept of stealing from naturalism. There is nothing that a theist can say about a supernatural deity that doesn't steal the concept from naturalism.
(In other words, "supernatural" has never contributed anything to human knowledge. In other words, it's useless.)
If you haven't checked out THIS THREAD, have a look at the way I respond to the "argument from intangible quantification." In this thread, I point out that words like "immeasurable" do a double-conflation. First, the "supernatural" definition must steal from nature to have meaning. Then, when the naturalist tries to invoke the natural meaning, the dualist retreats to the supernatural definition, claiming things in nature are "beyond science" and therefore the domain of the supernatural.
I didn't spell it out like this, but that's the whole thrust of the argument. Dualists must steal from nature, and when they try to retreat to "beyond nature" it is easy to point out the error.
Oh, and I gave up chess about five years ago. It's like calculus to me now. I can do it, but I'm not sure why I would want to inflict the pain upon myself. Golf too... self inflicted torture.
(Sorry... I just had to throw a jab back at you!)
(And I had to type the last parenthetical sentence to add yet another competitive game to the growing amorphous mass that is my metaphorical Prosenstein Monster.)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Nevermind. I can't get my stupid camera to work. Grr. Or maybe it's because of Vista. Oh well.
In other news, I'm also a mathematician. So now you insult calculus!? This has got to be some kind of cruel joke!
Or did you mean chess was too easy?
I've been debating whether or not asking if god exists is even an important question lately. I used to agree that obviously it was, but I just recently realized that by asking it, you assume there's some kind of reason to believe that there could be. Since I lack this reason (I don't see any reason to believe there is a god), I have decided that the question is, at the very least, unimportant. It could be potentially ridiculous too.
It's strange, though. If someone told me there were invisible bullets flying at my head, and if I said the wrong word, they would kill me, I would consider that important. But should I only consider it important after they have shown a good enough reason to believe that such a wacky claim is true? At best, their statement results in an appeal to emotion. If it is true, I shouldn't be sorry if I said the wrong word, even if it does kill me. This is because I had no way of knowing what they said was true because they didn't present any evidence, and it's patently ridiculous to believe that such a thing could happen.
I guess what it comes down to is that the question, "Is there a god?" Is only important to those who are really quite paranoid (and those of us trying to convince the others that there probably isn't a god).
The other day, my boss claimed that we know the resurrection happened with reasonable certainty. I asked him how he knew that to be true. He babbled on, as usual, and I came to the conclusion that he didn't know. I said as much, and he said, "No, what you're claiming is that we can't KNOW anything." It is a straw man, though. I was just claiming that he was wrong. Why is it that he is so quick to point out where others are wrong (and to use logical fallacies galore in so doing), but he is completely unable to admit that he even might be wrong? It's completely irrational.
"Jesus -- the other white Moses" - Me.
I always ask people who think this way to consider themselves accused of murder and pretend they are in court.
Prosecution - M' Lord. We have no evidence to suggest that the defendant is guilty nor do we have evidence to suggest that the defendant is innocent. We thereby conclude that the defendant must have commited murder.
Judge - Thank you. There is no requirement for a statement for the defence as the logic offered is sound. I thereby advise the jury to find the defendant guilty of murder.
Jury - We find the defendant guilty, your honour.
Judge - I sentence you to serve a minimum of 20 years. Take the condemned to the cells sergeant.
I often find that as long as things like the tsunami, do not happen to them then they are fine with thinking that it's good or that it's god's will/plan.
Funny how these people lack empathy and a lack of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" attitude that you would have thought had been taught to them.
Even when bad things happen they explain it away... how batshit insane (and just plain creepy) is it that there are no shortage of people who do think such tragedy befalling them is part of some "divine plan?" When Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, the news programs interviewed victims who had lost everything yet saw a "miracle" in that "God spared" them. Others clung to their belief that all the people who died had been "called home" en masse, and were happily kickin' it with Jesus. Even when I was a theist, I never could quite come to believe that bad things happening to innocent people was anything other than tragic, much less something that should be understood as evidence of "God's glory."
Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.