Bad Atheist arguments PART 2: God doesn't make SENSE!

[Labrat]

"Why would God...?"
"How can God...?"

So you're confused. As a fellow Atheist I am too. To me, it's all a bunch of contradictory nonsense. If God is all loving why would he allow all the children to be killed by Herod whilst saving Jesus? Couldn't he just let them all live and let Jesus go on to do his thing?

I DON'T GET IT! IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! WHY WOULD A GOD DO THAT!??

Obviously, because I have questions and no answers this must mean God doesn't exist, right?

WRONG!

As with our example in PART 1, we simply need to turn the argument around to understand it's total nonsense for us to question a supposed God's actions or character. Sure, we have questions about God and faith but the apparent illogical nature of the two have no place in a discussion with a Theist.

Why?

Because we know what it's like when a Theist asks US questions. We judge Theists based on their LACK of knowledge or understanding on anything from the Big Bang Theory to Evolution to the Bible itself. Have you ever said to a Theist something along the lines of, "well, you obviously don't understand Evolution"?

And did that seem like a good response?

Has a Theist ever said to you something along the lines of, "Well, i'm not sure you understand God"?

And was that response good enough for you?

Similarly, has a Theist ever "won" an argument (in their mind) simply because you didn't have all the answers?
Have you ever felt you'd "won" an argument because a Theist couldn't explain some transgression of God?

Just stop. You should NEVER bring up the CHARACTER of God in a discussion with a Theist. Also refrain from bringing up any contradictions in the bible.

[Labrat]

Wow, you want to hear a really bad argument from an Atheist check out the Atheist Experience July 24th episode (Sorry Emery, don't mean to pander to another podcast, heh!). For almost an hour and a half we get to hear "special guest" Greg Paul argue God's in-existence BECAUSE BABIES DIE. Honestly, I don't know if he's claiming that this is proof of God's in-existence or that he just disagrees with what appears to be a rather confusing character of an existing God. This fits both "bad atheist arguments" PARTS 2 and 4. A double header!

The argument is whether God exists or not. Why do so many people (Atheist and Theist alike) go round and round with all this rhetoric/semantic nonsense?

I feel like the Theists are "winning" the debate simply because they have us Atheists running in circles trying to blame them for a shooting, or question why God would do this or that...

-sigh- come on guys. Get it together. Lets stick to the argument: God exists? PROVE IT.

[Exrev]

ARGUMENT FROM BIOGENESIS
(1) Where did Adam come from, dummy?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

love this http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

[Keep The Reason]

Because we know what it's like when a Theist asks US questions. We judge Theists based on their LACK of knowledge or understanding on anything from the Big Bang Theory to Evolution to the Bible itself. Have you ever said to a Theist something along the lines of, "well, you obviously don't understand Evolution"?

And did that seem like a good response?

Yes, it's a great answer because evolution is a science that is understandable even to laypersons. So, if someone plays back a corrupted version of evolution ("If we're descended from monkeys, then why are there monkeys?") I can correct their misunderstanding ("We're not descended from monkeys. Monkeys and humans are both descended from a common ancestor between us")

Has a Theist ever said to you something along the lines of, "Well, i'm not sure you understand God"?

And was that response good enough for you?

It doesn't cut both ways because where I remain in the realm of rationality with a scientific model, the theist has no such luxury within an irrational theistic model. Even theists do not understand key issues regarding their beliefs, like "what does it mean that god 'exists outside of time'?" Or, "What is the explanation of the trinity?" Or, "what is god's nature in and of itself?" So when the reasonist does not understand what the theist is talking about, they are usually in the exact same boat together because the theist doesn't know what he or she is talking about either.

Similarly, has a Theist ever "won" an argument (in their mind) simply because you didn't have all the answers?
Have you ever felt you'd "won" an argument because a Theist couldn't explain some transgression of God?

Really, the anthropomorphic attributes given to god are of the least concern. They cannot even properly define what god is, let alone dive into his so-called behavioral characteristics.

And anyone who debates theists trying to convince them of anything is truly on a hopeless cause. These debates don't exist to win over our philosophical opponents, it's to outline for any fence sitters out there why one side has a better position that another. Theists themselves are never my target audience.

[Exrev]

"Just stop. You should NEVER bring up the CHARACTER of God in a discussion with a Theist. Also refrain from bringing up any contradictions in the bible."

I disagree. I think that atheist should at least be fimilar with the bible before they do this, but I believe it is a very effective in getting believers to think. One thing I like to point out is Mark 13. where Jesus tells them that he will return before "this generation passes". Also making believers compare and contrast the resurrection stories is a great way for them to expose them to the contradictions of the bible. See what happens is most believers haven't looked at the gospels stories back to back...showing them the differences like that would be a new perspective for them. See most preachers have lumped all the stories into one new story. I think taking the believers through the empty grave stories one at a time would shock most believers at the differences.

[Keep The Reason]

Also refrain from bringing up any contradictions in the bible.

Where is,

"Walk with head hung in shame, atheist scum, and never look into the eyes of your betters"?

[tirtlegrrl]

I think contradictions in the Bible can be used in discussion with theists--but not necessarily as an entry point for discussions about the existence of God. Where the contradictions come in handy is in challenging the plausibility of certain interpretational or doctrinal assumptions about the Bible itself. A big part of my deconversion was the discovery of prophecies in the Bible that appeared to be incorrect, like the prophecy of the destruction of Tyre, and the appeal in the book of Matthew to "fulfilled prophecies" --some of those prophecies being inaccurately cited or nonexistent, or appearing to be completely taken out of context, which raised questions about the nature of the "meaning" of a text. Once I came to view inerrancy as an article of faith not an objectively demonstrable fact, THEN that opened up other avenues of doubt about the nature and existence of God.

[Labrat]

I think what everyone is missing (as they go about trying to argue the finer points of evolution, contradictions in the bible, or the illogical nature of the belief system as a whole) is that NONE of that means anything to them.

Let me rephrase that, it means NOTHING to them.

God exists because of (and for) a personal emotional appeal. Period. No amount of reason is gonna do it. No amount of evidence is gonna do it.

I think the belief that God exists isn't based on any sort of evidence (or lack of...as we know). It is instead based on a believer's PERSONAL desire for it.

Why on Earth would you argue any point outside of one that might be better dissected through Psychology??

I've had better results asking WHY someone believes in God than asking HOW God can be.

Quite honestly, from a psychological perspective, just asking someone if they believe in God and how they define him/her/it can be the most insightful question/s known as to the inner turmoils, struggles, hopes and dreams of a person (even outside of anything having to do with God...and maybe it's why the topic means so much to most -?-).

Do they answer "God is love"? Chances are they NEED (point one) the existence of this imaginary being to fulfill a love they might otherwise FEEL VOID OF (point two).

Rather then argue contradictions in the bible, delve deeper into the need or the void they may feel/have.

If the belief in God is based on emotional appeal...GO FOR THE EMOTIONAL APPEAL. It's the ONLY thing that will ever convince them. It's what convinced them to believe in God in the first place!

Basically, you have to get to the core of the believer...not the belief

[Exrev]

I think what everyone is missing (as they go about trying to argue the finer points of evolution, contradictions in the bible, or the illogical nature of the belief system as a whole) is that NONE of that means anything to them.

Let me rephrase that, it means NOTHING to them.

God exists because of (and for) a personal emotional appeal. Period. No amount of reason is gonna do it. No amount of evidence is gonna do it.

Then they aren't in a place to where they will listen at all. Then it is pointless to argue with them. However, I know from my experience that evolution, contradictions in the bible and the illogical nature of the belief system was exactly what I discovered that cause me to leave the faith.

I think the belief that God exists isn't based on any sort of evidence (or lack of...as we know). It is instead based on a believer's PERSONAL desire for it.

I disagree. People will believe things for many reasons. Whether they want to or not is not i doubt is a major reason. How many people want to believe they will burn in hell? Probably not too many. They may believe something wrongly, but the person still believes things because in their mind they have good reason. If you want to challenge someones belief you have to give them good reason to doubt what they were told before. A big part of that is winning their trust and making points that they have not thought of before.

Rather then argue contradictions in the bible, delve deeper into the need or the void they may feel/have.

If the belief in God is based on emotional appeal...GO FOR THE EMOTIONAL APPEAL. It's the ONLY thing that will ever convince them. It's what convinced them to believe in God in the first place!

Then we become just like them! Yes we can make an emotional appeal, but they will see through it. I disagree that it was just emotional appeal that convinced them to believe... there are many other reasons why people believe. I think you'll lose the emotional appeal. What could work is pointing those contradictions in the bible and good solid reasoning skills .. It may not work immediately. It could take years...but you'd be surprised how long a single conversation about these things will influence a person. The goal is not for US to change their minds the goal is for them to think outside their mental box. Get them to question things. Our goal shouldn't even be that they agree with us...but if we can get them to think critically then we've done good.

I will say this though. If you are dealing with someone who believes in hell...I think that is a huge emotional barrier for people to think critically because of the fear it will be a mental block. Again I mostly talk with conservative and funie Christians. Liberal Christians I really don't bother with much.

Basically, you have to get to the core of the believer...not the belief

Nah, we just need to push them slightly in the right direction. If we can get their curiosity up then maybe just maybe they will take a second look at things for themselves.

[Keep The Reason]

I think what everyone is missing (as they go about trying to argue the finer points of evolution, contradictions in the bible, or the illogical nature of the belief system as a whole) is that NONE of that means anything to them.

Let me rephrase that, it means NOTHING to them.

Labrat, what you don't seem to realize is that many of us already recognize that theists will not change their minds base don arguments. Frankly, I don't care that theists believe in their bibles and qu'rans and so on. they are not my target audience. I gave up on that lost cause a long time ago.

I do this to help hone my writing skills, address any newer, fresher perspectives, and to reach those sitting on the fence who may be reading this. If there is a "target audience" for me, it's people who view but don't respond -- those who are evaluating the arguments and coming to conclusions based on the discussion covering all these varying points.

I mean, look at it-- the "Arguments" here are among the same few people. Tony English, Mitch, Christian Heretic, Rian, tirtlegrrl, JustJim, ExRev, humanguy, me maybe 5 or 6 others -- maybe there are 10-15 people actively debating. A mere pittance-- a tear in the eyes of a protozoan in the ocean. Maybe there's more some months, less others. But to think this small group is of real merit in and of themselves-- well, no offense, I'm sure you're all nice enough people (away from forums that is), but all of us are pretty insignificant.

But who may be lurking, or who may be here tomorrow, is up in the air. And these debates (and others left elsewhere) are on the record. For instance, I only discovered the podcasts a couple of months ago and have listened to every single one of them now. These are years old-- but they are on the record and have impact, and there was no attempt to convince the other to convert or deconvert. And they weren't done with me personally in mind, I just happened to come along and there they are. So that's my goal too. It's not to deconvert a believer. It's to offer the full argument to those searching both today and down the road as well, and your "Bad Arguments" would eliminate reaching those people. That would be foolish.

[Labrat]

Then they aren't in a place to where they will listen at all. Then it is pointless to argue with them. However, I know from my experience that evolution, contradictions in the bible and the illogical nature of the belief system was exactly what I discovered that cause me to leave the faith.

Yes, and I think it's because the natural world is ENOUGH for you (as it is for me). You have no emotional appeal to explain further the things that happen around you. Death is death (as an example). You have no NEED to reason it further. You accept it for what it is. Would you say leaving the faith maybe had a little to do with not needing it any more? Was it entirely about reason and logic? I wouldn't believe you if you said, "yes" lol

I think the belief that God exists isn't based on any sort of evidence (or lack of...as we know). It is instead based on a believer's PERSONAL desire for it.

I disagree. People will believe things for many reasons. Whether they want to or not is not i doubt is a major reason. How many people want to believe they will burn in hell? Probably not too many.

I think you miss the point of the whole "hell thing". When hell is brought up it's done so in a manner that exemplifies the believer and demoralizes you. Its a power play. When someone plays the, "you're going to burn in hell" card, they are simply saying that they have a leg up on you. THEY know God. THEY are going to be ok. THEY have the advantage of belief. YOU'RE up shit's creek. It's just as much an emotional appeal as the NEED to believe in the first place. But hell is the BEST emotional appeal. How many people want to believe in Hell? How about all those who think they aren't going but you are? By the way, the answer to that question is, "all of them". The hell argument is PACKED with emotional appeal. It carries with it the relief that they will be ok and the authority to judge you. Speaking for God is the ultimate authority is it not? What a rush that must be for them.

Rather then argue contradictions in the bible, delve deeper into the need or the void they may feel/have.

If the belief in God is based on emotional appeal...GO FOR THE EMOTIONAL APPEAL. It's the ONLY thing that will ever convince them. It's what convinced them to believe in God in the first place!

Then we become just like them! Yes we can make an emotional appeal, but they will see through it. I disagree that it was just emotional appeal that convinced them to believe... there are many other reasons why people believe. I think you'll lose the emotional appeal. What could work is pointing those contradictions in the bible and good solid reasoning skills .. It may not work immediately. It could take years...but you'd be surprised how long a single conversation about these things will influence a person. The goal is not for US to change their minds the goal is for them to think outside their mental box. Get them to question things. Our goal shouldn't even be that they agree with us...but if we can get them to think critically then we've done good.

Many other reasons why people believe? Like what? Name one. Logic? Reason? Evidence? There is NOTHING outside of emotional appeal that makes a believer. Belief in God (or any god) is a psychological disorder. Really. Or do you really think they may "have something there"? If a man thinks he's Jesus Christ and jumps off of a building are you going to reason with him? I'm guessing not. These people are the same (though not so extreme...most). They are INSANE to a lesser extent. Honestly, I have a hard time believing most of the believers. I think many go through the motions to appease a loved one or because it's majority rules and they dont want to put ripples in the water...but im not talking about them. I'm talking about the real believers. Those emotionally attached to the belief.

For me the discussion is intended to decipher the "posers" from the true believers. If ive uncovered a "poser" then yes...logic, reason and evidence might work. But the clinically fuckin insane ones actually BELIEVE they are speaking to some super being in the sky?

Emotional appeal. And you're right, it's MUCH harder to break that wall down. I say damn near impossible.

[Labrat]

I say damn near impossible.

Not without therapy or shock treatment