Arguments against atheists

Tim Robbins

KieranKennedy wrote: »

1. The theory of evolution is just a theory: Evolution is nothing more than a theory, or a best guess as to the origin of life. Therefore atheistic evolutionists who criticise the religious for blind faith are guilty of that very same “sin”.

The word "theory" has a completly different meaning in a scientific context than in a common usage. In fact, it's a bad choice of words as it causes a lot of problems and misunderstandings. If something is a sound scientific theory, it essentially means it's a fact. Read Popper for more info.

2. There has to have been something which started it all: The universe can’t have just come about by random chance, there must have been a prime mover that started the ball rolling, and that prime mover is God.

And then what started God?

3. Similar to the above, something can’t be made from nothing: There must have been nothing before the universe can into existence. How can something be made from nothing without God.

Defining "nothing" is actually quite hard to do. No molecules, no quarks, no colour, no electro magnetic wave radiation, no energy ok, but what about things that are outside measuring?

4. How can all the beauty of the world be explained without God. If the universe is indifferent to our existence, why is there such beauty in the setting sun, a field of flowers, the falling snow. A loving God is the reason for this beauty.

Nature is crueler than it is kind.

5. How can human goodness be explained without God? People are good because God will punish them if they do evil or because God makes them good.

Evolution. Read the Selfish Gene by Mr. Dawkins.

6. Miracles. How can one explain the miracles at places like Lourdes and Fatima without God?

there is no good evidence for any miracle.

7. The experiences of religious people: How can one explain all the religious experiences of people which require God if God does not exist?

1. It's like a very effective placebo.
2. Humans have a need for transcendence, divinity etc. Religion fulfills this need.

8. How can the ubiquity of religion be explained if there is no God?

See above.

9. How can the complexity and organised appearance of the universe exist without a God to design it?

God does nothing to answer this question, for he must be even more complicated than the Universe, in which case who designed him?

10. Why does the universe appear to be finely tuned to suit life as it is, surely this requires a God?

Again fails by regression. If the Universe needs a designer, so does God.

I myself do not accept all of these arguments, I am simply interesting in hearing responses to them. Thanks.

No problem. Ultimately we are limited by our limited understanding. My Dog will never understand the internet no matter how hard I try to explain it.

Similarly, we'll never fully understand the Universe IMO.

Overblood

1. The theory of evolution is just a theory: Evolution is nothing more than a theory, or a best guess as to the origin of life. Therefore atheistic evolutionists who criticise the religious for blind faith are guilty of that very same “sin”.

You are confusing the word theory with hypothesis.

2. There has to have been something which started it all: The universe can’t have just come about by random chance, there must have been a prime mover that started the ball rolling, and that prime mover is God.

How do you know it was "God"? Scientists are working to figure out the origin of the universe. Are you happy to just explain everything away as "God did it" without trying to figure out the workings? Where did God come from? Who was his "prime mover?".

3. Similar to the above, something can’t be made from nothing: There must have been nothing before the universe can into existence. How can something be made from nothing without God.

Same as above, who made God?

4. How can all the beauty of the world be explained without God. If the universe is indifferent to our existence, why is there such beauty in the setting sun, a field of flowers, the falling snow. A loving God is the reason for this beauty.

Explain cancer so. Or cleft lips. Or blindness. Malaria. Starvation. Poisonus snakes. Tsunamis. Volcanos. Earthquakes. List goes on.

5. How can human goodness be explained without God? People are good because God will punish them if they do evil or because God makes them good.

Humans are a social species, so people are good not becasue god will punish them, but so they can stay as part of their social group. A bad person with no morals will eventually be ostracized from his group. A good person will make friends, have kids etc. everything a normal human does.

6. Miracles. How can one explain the miracles at places like Lourdes and Fatima without God?

What miracles? Are you on about this???!!!

The apparitions of Our Lady of Lourdes began on 11 February 1858, when Bernadette Soubirous, a 14-year old peasant girl from Lourdes admitted, when questioned by her mother, that she had seen a "lady" in the cave of Massabielle, about a mile from the town, while she was gathering firewood with her sister and a friend.[1] Similar appearances of the "lady" took place on seventeen further occasions that year.
Bernadette Soubirous was canonized as a saint, and many Catholics believe her visions to have been of the Virgin Mary. The first appearance of the "Lady" reported by Bernadette was on 11 February. Pope Pius IX authorized the local bishop to permit the veneration of the Virgin Mary in Lourdes in 1862.

So a 14 year old kid saw a lady. That means it was Mary.:rolleyes: Haha. NEXT!

7. The experiences of religious people: How can one explain all the religious experiences of people which require God if God does not exist?

Dunno. The human mind is a deep ocean waiting to be explored and understood. Don't throw God in as an easy explanation.

8. How can the ubiquity of religion be explained if there is no God?

In the olden days when the average human was as thick as the back of a hatchet, Gods were used to explain absolutely everything. And as a means of control. Now science has opened up our eyes to how the universe works, but for some reason I cannot explian, religion prevails. Grrrrrr.

9. How can the complexity and organised appearance of the universe exist without a God to design it?

Lets try and figure that out. Don't explain it away with one simple word "God". That's pathetic.

10. Why does the universe appear to be finely tuned to suit life as it is, surely this requires a God?

Or how about life being so finely tuned to suit the universe? The universe wasn't "tuned" for you, sorry to inform you.

The Mad Hatter

Has the OP made a second post yet?

KieranKennedy

Thank you all for your responses, you all seem very well informed on these questions, and I apologise if they were old/well refuted arguments, it may surprise some of you to find out that these arguments seem perfectly reasonable to many religious people, and I frequently here them when the matter is brought up.

Religious people have faith. While I, and probably all religious people see this as a virtue, I can understand how strange faith must appear to somebody who holds any other perspective. Faith is not a rational position. It is not based on anything like empirical facts or logic, and therefore its value cannot be debated in such a terms. My faith in God is based on a feeling, albeit a particularly strong one, and that cannot be measured or analysed the same way a the evidence supporting the theory (I must add that I do understand the sense in which this word is used, I did state that I do not believe all of the arguments I was putting forward myself) of evolution is.

Zamboni

KieranKennedy wrote: »

Religious people have faith. While I, and probably all religious people see this as a virtue, I can understand how strange faith must appear to somebody who holds any other perspective. Faith is not a rational position. It is not based on anything like empirical facts or logic, and therefore its value cannot be debated in such a terms. My faith in God is based on a feeling, albeit a particularly strong one, and that cannot be measured or analysed the same way a the evidence supporting the theory (I must add that I do understand the sense in which this word is used, I did state that I do not believe all of the arguments I was putting forward myself) of evolution is.

I did believe in the whole christian thing years ago and I do understand faith.
Please don't simply make it convenient by saying it cannot be based on such terms. That is such a cop out.
Give me science any day of the week instead of a strong feeling.

Zombrex

KieranKennedy wrote: »

My faith in God is based on a feeling, albeit a particularly strong one, and that cannot be measured or analysed the same way a the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is.

Fair enough. Most people round these parts would not consider that as meaning much. You could after all simply be wrong. Feelings are notoriously unreliable. They also tend to get into infinite loops, I feel I am not wrong about my feeling. I feel I'm not wrong about the feeling I'm not wrong about the feeling etc etc

seamus

KieranKennedy wrote: »

Faith is not a rational position. It is not based on anything like empirical facts or logic, and therefore its value cannot be debated in such a terms. My faith in God is based on a feeling, albeit a particularly strong one

FWIW, I respect someone who holds religious beliefs based purely on "feeling" rather than those who attempt to justify theirs based on pseudoscience and parables from a 4000 year old book of fairytales. At least you accept that your feelings are your feelings and you can't (nor need to) justify it to yourself and others.

The Mad Hatter

KieranKennedy wrote: »

Thank you all for your responses, you all seem very well informed on these questions, and I apologise if they were old/well refuted arguments, it may surprise some of you to find out that these arguments seem perfectly reasonable to many religious people, and I frequently here them when the matter is brought up.

Religious people have faith. While I, and probably all religious people see this as a virtue, I can understand how strange faith must appear to somebody who holds any other perspective. Faith is not a rational position. It is not based on anything like empirical facts or logic, and therefore its value cannot be debated in such a terms. My faith in God is based on a feeling, albeit a particularly strong one, and that cannot be measured or analysed the same way a the evidence supporting the theory (I must add that I do understand the sense in which this word is used, I did state that I do not believe all of the arguments I was putting forward myself) of evolution is.

Your honesty is refreshing. Many Christians seem to think that god is scientifically provable - it's nice to meet someone who at least admits that their belief is founded on faith and the unprovable.

Overblood

KieranKennedy wrote: »

I did state that I do not believe all of the arguments I was putting forward myself

Which questions are you referring to?

DinoBot

KieranKennedy wrote: »

It is not based on anything like empirical facts or logic, and therefore its value cannot be debated in such a terms. My faith in God is based on a feeling, albeit a particularly strong one, and that cannot be measured or analysed the same way a the evidence supporting the theory (I must add that I do understand the sense in which this word is used, I did state that I do not believe all of the arguments I was putting forward myself) of evolution is.

If its not based on anything like empirical facts or logic and just feelings how can you tell if your not being lied to by others ? What mechanism do you use to be able to see the false religions from the true ? Or are you one of the lucky ones to be born into the true religion ?

Handsome Bob

KieranKennedy wrote: »

5. How can human goodness be explained without God? People are good because God will punish them if they do evil or because God makes them good.

In what way do you think God punishes the evil? Would he wait until the end of said evil persons existence to punish him/her with Hell? Or does he punish those who are evil during their existence. If so, how does he punish them? Strike them down with sickness? Turn their life upside down?

Tim Robbins

KieranKennedy wrote: »

Religious people have faith. While I, and probably all religious people see this as a virtue, I can understand how strange faith must appear to somebody who holds any other perspective. Faith is not a rational position. It is not based on anything like empirical facts or logic, and therefore its value cannot be debated in such a terms. My faith in God is based on a feeling, albeit a particularly strong one, and that cannot be measured or analysed the same way a the evidence supporting the theory (I must add that I do understand the sense in which this word is used, I did state that I do not believe all of the arguments I was putting forward myself) of evolution is.

And it's refreshing to hear someone like yourself post here. I have no major problem with any of your opinions and you seem like the kind of person I couldn't be bothered with arguing with as you have decided who you are, what fits you and you respect others.

Enjoy boards.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Fair enough. Most people round these parts would not consider that as meaning much. You could after all simply be wrong. Feelings are notoriously unreliable. They also tend to get into infinite loops, I feel I am not wrong about my feeling. I feel I'm not wrong about the feeling I'm not wrong about the feeling etc etc

We could all be wrong about our feelings, including that of atheism; most people recognise the existence of God as unfalsifiable.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Your honesty is refreshing. Many Christians seem to think that god is scientifically provable

Who?

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

Who?

These guys for a start.

Jarrath

Feelgood wrote: »

Hi Kiernan, All are valid points I suppose...

My thoughts would be that you get possibly 60-70 very very short years (if your lucky) on this earth then your dead and that is it.

Are you going on to eternal peace in God's paradise, who knows, maybe so or maybe not. For that reason I think that any argument on whos beliefs are right or wrong are just a waste of time, because you can never conclude any right or wrong answer when it comes to religion.

I never understood why we'd bother spending 60-70 years on this earth if your just gonna end up in God's paradise..

Why not just skip the earth part and go straight there...

I was brought up Catholic but don't consider myself to be one, or atheist or anything.. Don't need the label..

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

most people recognise the existence of God as unfalsifiable.

Oh for pete's sake :rolleyes: Seriously this is the dumbest course of reasoning ever, and I seem to see you using it frequently. Replace "God" with "Smurfs" and you'll see how dumb most Atheists find this statement. It might be true (both for smurfs and God) but it is completely and utterly irrelevant. Unfalsifiable does not make something relevant, in fact there are an infinite number of things that are unfalsifiable that humans ignore. We tend to only care about the relevance of something, and Atheists argue that Religion is irrelevant to humans and society.

Húrin wrote: »

Who?

Aside from ID'ers, a lot of Christians try to convince people that there are obvious signs for their Gods existence. I can't see a reason why any Christian would come into this forum to post otherwise.

I don't understand why they do this though, I mean the Christian God asks for faith that he DOES exist, not for his followers to question him and try to validate his existence by looking at other Gods in comparison, or questioning whether there are signs in nature or the universe that support his claim. Their findings will always come back to them being required to have blind faith in the bibles validity, so I just find it odd that they would waste time talking about how to prove their God is real when they can never effectively do this and their God doesn't require it from them to be saved.

"Reason is, of all things in the world, the most hurtful to a reasoning human being. God only allows it to remain with those he intends to damn, and in his goodness takes it away from those he intends to save or render useful to the Church....If reason had any part in religion, what then would become of faith." - Voltaire

thusspakeblixa

KieranKennedy wrote: »

: The universe can’t have just come about by random chance

Why not?

Fighting Irish

this should be fun

eoin5

thusspakeblixa wrote: »

Why not?

According to modern guesswork before the big bang happened there existed the singularity which was everything and tiny. We havent a clue whether there was anything before that. Its a silly question to ask if the universe came about by chance or by deity, a bit like asking if something is colourlessly green.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Oh for pete's sake :rolleyes: Seriously this is the dumbest course of reasoning ever, and I seem to see you using it frequently. Replace "God" with "Smurfs" and you'll see how dumb most Atheists find this statement. It might be true (both for smurfs and God) but it is completely and utterly irrelevant. Unfalsifiable does not make something relevant, in fact there are an infinite number of things that are unfalsifiable that humans ignore. We tend to only care about the relevance of something, and Atheists argue that Religion is irrelevant to humans and society.

What a gloriously simplistic view of everything you have: Every point I make is apparently directed to "prove" God's existence. Reason apparently has no place in religious discourse. All theistic posters must be here to prove the existence of God and spread the word.

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

These guys for a start.

Well done, you've found one. That doesn't make many. From the same website:

The definition of science has changed within the last century from an overall search for truth (he must mean philosophy here) to a more limited scope of natural explanations of natural processes. Using the current narrow scope definition, there is not any scientific proof of God.

The Mad Hatter's generalisation is not justified.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

We could all be wrong about our feelings, including that of atheism;

I don't know a whole lot of atheists who are atheists because of feelings. Most atheists I know are atheists because of the scientific principle that if you can't demonstrate something exists or model it then there is no reason to assume it does.

Húrin wrote: »

most people recognise the existence of God as unfalsifiable.

That is a pretty good reason not to believe he exists.

Theists say - I can't demonstrate God exists but I choose to believe he exists anyway because of all these feelings I have in my head that he must exist (list of all the reasons theists give for believing in God)

Atheists say - I can't demonstrate God exists so I don't believe he does. What I feel, or hope, or wish was true, is irrelevant.

generalisation alert!!!!

cavedave

Húrin

Originally Posted by Goduznt Xzst
..,
What a gloriously simplistic view of everything you have

You are dealing with someone who thinks lolcats are a convincing argument in a debate. Expecting a dialectic might be being a bit ambitious.

fitz0

cavedave wrote: »

You are dealing with someone who thinks lolcats are a convincing argument in a debate. Expecting a dialectic might be being a bit ambitious.

In his defence it was a very appropriate lolcat.

The Mad Hatter

Húrin wrote: »

The Mad Hatter's generalisation is not justified.

Well, I'm assuming that pretty much everyone who's ever proselytised has tried to some extent to prove the existence of their god. Possibly the word 'scientific' was misplaced. I stand by everything else.

Frankly, if people just said 'I believe, and it's my business', that'd be fine. It's when they get to 'I believe, and so should you (usually followed by a list of reasons)' that it becomes irritating.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't know a whole lot of atheists who are atheists because of feelings. Most atheists I know are atheists because of the scientific principle that if you can't demonstrate something exists or model it then there is no reason to assume it does.

We obviously know different atheists then. Do you work in a scientific profession? There's nothing scientific about the disbelief of most atheists I know (see my recent thread here). They just feel that nothing metaphysical exists. It's not awful, I'm not judging. Just the way it is.

That is a pretty good reason not to believe he exists.

Theists say - I can't demonstrate God exists but I choose to believe he exists anyway because of all these feelings I have in my head that he must exist (list of all the reasons theists give for believing in God)

Atheists say - I can't demonstrate God exists so I don't believe he does. What I feel, or hope, or wish was true, is irrelevant.

No, I don't think that either group has a distinctly greater share of people who discount their feelings. Remember, logical positivism is not some base condition of reality that we all intuitively know to be true epistemology. It's just a trend in academia, and perhaps western culture in general. Those who feel there is nothing metaphysical tend to be attracted to it.

Húrin

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Frankly, if people just said 'I believe, and it's my business', that'd be fine. It's when they get to 'I believe, and so should you (usually followed by a list of reasons)' that it becomes irritating.

I have never done that. I have corrected a lot of false claims, and defended the credibility of my belief in God and the Christian Gospels. But I find the line of 'I (dis)believe, and neither should you (usually followed by a list of reasons)' is more common with the atheists on here.

sink

Húrin wrote: »

We obviously know different atheists then. Do you work in a scientific profession? There's nothing scientific about the disbelief of most atheists I know (see my recent thread here). They just feel that nothing metaphysical exists. It's not awful, I'm not judging. Just the way it is.

Metaphysics is the art of thinking about what we can never know. It's not that we don't believe in anything metaphysical exists, it's the fact that there is no way of verify the existence anything metaphysical and therefore we can't gain knowledge and apply that to anything real or useful. Metaphysics is in reality pointless except for a bit of intellectual stimulation and entertainment. That is why it is a philosophy and not a science.