Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

This assumes that a soul is a tangible thing. Not everyone is convinced of this.

I don't see how that makes a difference. You claim that the human species is the only species to have a soul. Your stuck with the same problem.

nozzferrahhtoo

LZ5by5 wrote: »

When atheists refuse to acknowledge the positive role religion plays in someone's life with bereavement being a typical example.

You may have a point to some degree there, but it is entirely down to what conversation you are having. If you are having a conversation about the affects of religion for example, this point is entirely valid.

If, however, your conversation is about how TRUE the claims are, such as that of there being a non-human intelligence which created the universe, then how good it makes people feel to believe it has literally zero relevance to how true the claim is.

Which is why, in a lot of cases, we "refuse to acknowledge" the argument as you say above and it is entirely valid to do so.

Handsome Bob

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You may have a point to some degree there, but it is entirely down to what conversation you are having. If you are having a conversation about the affects of religion for example, this point is entirely valid.

If, however, your conversation is about how TRUE the claims are, such as that of there being a non-human intelligence which created the universe, then how good it makes people feel to believe it has literally zero relevance to how true the claim is.

Which is why, in a lot of cases, we "refuse to acknowledge" the argument as you say above and it is entirely valid to do so.

You're right, that is what I was referring to.

In regards to the second part, I would resist getting into that argument. It's a bit dickish isn't it?

nozzferrahhtoo

Dickish? I am not sure what that means.

I would also love to “avoid” getting into that argument. In fact I would love to “avoid” getting into any argument about religion any time ever and just leave the religious alone.

I am frankly not let. I am interested in Politics, Education, Science, Ethics, Morality, Law, Sexuality, Society and more. In EVERY single one of those realms of discourse I have god and religion shoved in my face. Apparently belief in gods does not make you happy, at least until everyone else believes it too.

Since the base premise that it is all based on IS the existence or otherwise of this entity, it is hard to not end up having that argument regardless of how much I "want" to or how "dickish" it is.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Equally applicable to atheists surely? If one doesn't want to entertain the possibility of God being a reality that is.

It certain does, and that brings me to the most annoying/frustrating atheist argument of all time in my humble opinion (drum roll)

"I know God/gods/a creator does not exist"

There is so many flaws with the logic of such an assertion it is hard to know where to begin. The first question anyone should ask is how have you determined this. The answers you get back end up using the same flawed logic theists tend to use, or confusing the default position of not knowing something so we don't know with not knowing something so we claim it doesn't exist.

To me the only valid argument for the intellectual position of atheism (ie I've thought about it and decided to be an atheist, rather than I lived 40,000 years ago and no one had invented gods yet) is the rejection of human religious assertions on the belief that it is far more plausible that they were invented (for a number of reasons best explained by evolution) and therefore are very unlikely to be actual reflections of reality, or if they are this is some what of a fluke.

Handsome Bob

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Dickish? I am not sure what that means.

I would also love to “avoid” getting into that argument. In fact I would love to “avoid” getting into any argument about religion any time ever and just leave the religious alone.

I am frankly not let. I am interested in Politics, Education, Science, Ethics, Morality, Law, Sexuality, Society and more. In EVERY single one of those realms of discourse I have god and religion shoved in my face. Apparently belief in gods does not make you happy, at least until everyone else believes it too.

Since the base premise that it is all based on IS the existence or otherwise of this entity, it is hard to not end up having that argument regardless of how much I "want" to or how "dickish" it is.

I say dickish because, and please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what you meant, you would be trying to undermine someone's emotional support mechanism by declaring "your emotional support is based on something that isn't true or real".

Sam Vimes

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I say dickish because, and please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what you meant, you would be trying to undermine someone's emotional support mechanism by declaring "your emotional support is based on something that isn't true or real".

What you're essentially saying is that telling someone that you're an atheist is dickish because it is the position that somebody else's emotional support mechanism isn't true, as is the position of being a member of any faith except the one the person you're talking to is a member of for that matter.

nozzferrahhtoo

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I say dickish because, and please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what you meant, you would be trying to undermine someone's emotional support mechanism by declaring "your emotional support is based on something that isn't true or real".

Well as I said, this is not an approach that has any interest to me. If someone wants to stay at home and think there is a god and feel really good about that, or supported by it, then more power to them.

If someone comes out into society and starts telling me something BASED on this god, then I really do not care what I am undermining, or how much they require believing in a god to stay supported or emotionally stable. Not a jot.

In that scenario what they are telling me is either true, or it is not. It can not be both. So if they have no evidence to support the existence of the deity they are basing their position on, then I am likely to point that out.

Sam Vimes

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well as I said, this is not an approach that has any interest to me. If someone wants to stay at home and think there is a god and feel really good about that, or supported by it, then more power to them.

If someone comes out into society and starts telling me something BASED on this god, then I really do not care what I am undermining, or how much they require believing in a god to stay supported or emotionally stable. Not a jot.

In that scenario what they are telling me is either true, or it is not. It can not be both. So if they have no evidence to support the existence of the deity they are basing their position on, then I am likely to point that out.

Exactly. Showing up at a funeral and telling all and sundry that their grandma's going to rot in the ground is a bit dickish but if someone wants their opinions to be taken seriously then the basis for those opinions is relevant.

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

It certain does, and that brings me to the most annoying/frustrating atheist argument of all time in my humble opinion (drum roll)

"I know God/gods/a creator does not exist"

There is so many flaws with the logic of such an assertion ...

Back to this old chestnut. Just to be clear are you saying that anyone making any statement of the form "I know X does not exist" is incorrect? or are you just reserving this for special properties of gods and creators?

Zombrex

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I say dickish because, and please feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted what you meant, you would be trying to undermine someone's emotional support mechanism by declaring "your emotional support is based on something that isn't true or real".

I think what he means is that the positive emotional support religion plays in someones life is fine until someone tries to, say, enact a law that bans abortion based on that positive emotional support. Then it becomes fair game for debate and critical assessment.

As nozzferrahhtoo says it depends on the context.

I wouldn't challenge the religious beliefs of a woman who's husband has just died. If she believes he is heaven good for her.

I would challenge her religious beliefs if the next day she or someone sharing her beliefs, set up a campaign to get Creationism taught in all schools because we can't deny the truth of Jesus' resurrection or some such.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

Back to this old chestnut. Just to be clear are you saying that anyone making any statement of the form "I know X does not exist" is incorrect? or are you just reserving this for special properties of gods and creators?

I am reserving it for things, including things with the special properties of gods, that are untestable and indeterminable.

We have no ability to test if the universe was created or not, nor do we have any ability to test if a supernatural force interacts with the universe (creator or not).

We cannot say these things don't exist. We can say we have no evidence they do, or that all the "evidence" put forward by theists is better explained by explanations that don't require taht they do exist.

I've no idea if a creator deity exists, but I do know (that is to say I'm satisfied to the point of being happy to say this) that theists don't either, and the stories of such interactions with said deity are far better explained using currently understood natural explanations.

komodosp

"I don't mind religious people who keep it to themselves, I just hate the ones that try to push their opinions/beliefs on me."
This is an annoying one. The assumption is that the religious person is just a self-important opinionated b****cks who can't stand to be wrong.

If we assume they are from one of the religions where you go to hell if you don't believe in them, then (from their point of view) they are trying to help you. To them, you are like a blind person walking towards a cliff's edge.
"Why didn't you stop Dave from walking off the cliff?"
"Well I didn't want to be rude, pushing my opinions on him"

Sam Vimes

komodosp wrote: »

"I don't mind religious people who keep it to themselves, I just hate the ones that try to push their opinions/beliefs on me."
This is an annoying one. The assumption is that the religious person is just a self-important opinionated b****cks who can't stand to be wrong.

If we assume they are from one of the religions where you go to hell if you don't believe in them, then (from their point of view) they are trying to help you. To them, you are like a blind person walking towards a cliff's edge.
"Why didn't you stop Dave from walking off the cliff?"
"Well I didn't want to be rude, pushing my opinions on him"

People who force their opinions on others usually think they're trying to help the person. We know they're trying to help us, just as the guys with the sandwich boards saying "The End is Nigh" are trying to help us. It doesn't mean we have to listen to them or that we shouldn't get annoyed by them.

This is how the conversation should go: "Oh you think I'm going to hell if I don't accept your mythology as true? Well isn't that fantastic!! Now go away please"

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

We have no ability to test if the universe was created or not, nor do we have any ability to test if a supernatural force interacts with the universe (creator or not).

There is one possible test, if a law of nature could be broken on request to the supernatural being, such as if amputees prayed to god for their arms to grow back and they did spontaneously and immediately. Such things never happen of course because prayer only seems to work when the outcome is ambiguous and you can never be sure if there was any supernatural element involved. So the interaction of a supernatural being could be proven but it can't be disproven just as the believers like it.

Dades

komodosp wrote: »

"Why didn't you stop Dave from walking off the cliff?"
"Well I didn't want to be rude, pushing my opinions on him"

LOL fairish point!

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

LOL fairish point!

It'd be more fair if, when questioned about this cliff, the response was: "It's an invisible cliff that only those whose hearts are open to it can see but I know it's there" :P

komodosp

Another one is, "If God exists why does he let bad things happen? (e.g. Tsunami a few years ago)" or "Why doesn't he do {whatever thing seems logical to do}?". "Why would an infinitely wise God hate homosexuals?" or "Why doesn't he just show us a few miracles to prove he exists?"

In this case we are taking *our* morals or logic and applying them to God. Assume God exists (for the sake of argument), he has a completely different level of knowledge and mental ability to us. Our second guessing what we think a God would or should think, is not an argument against his existence.

I might add religious people use this argument too... a bit off topic I know, but religious people thank God for the seemingly random good things but don't blame him for the bad...
"I believe in God but not that he hates homosexuals", you have no idea what God does and doesn't like, you've no choice but to believe the guy who told you he exists in the first place (priest/bible/whatever). It's like saying, "I believe in the Big Bang but I think it happened 25.2 billion years ago, not 13.7 billion" without any more research than reading the wikipedia article.

Sam Vimes

komodosp wrote: »

Another one is, "If God exists why does he let bad things happen? (e.g. Tsunami a few years ago)" or "Why doesn't he do {whatever thing seems logical to do}?". "Why would an infinitely wise God hate homosexuals?" or "Why doesn't he just show us a few miracles to prove he exists?"

In this case we are taking *our* morals or logic and applying them to God. Assume God exists (for the sake of argument), he has a completely different level of knowledge and mental ability to us. Our second guessing what we think a God would or should think, is not an argument against his existence.

I might add religious people use this argument too... a bit off topic I know, but religious people thank God for the seemingly random good things but don't blame him for the bad...
"I believe in God but not that he hates homosexuals", you have no idea what God does and doesn't like, you've no choice but to believe the guy who told you he exists in the first place (priest/bible/whatever). It's like saying, "I believe in the Big Bang but I think it happened 25.2 billion years ago, not 13.7 billion" without any more research than reading the wikipedia article.

The second part is not off topic, the argument that you find annoying from atheists is a direct response to the religious people who use the argument

We know that both bad and good things just happen and god isn't involved in either of them but as long as there are people out there thanking god for what they perceive as good things it's perfectly valid to point out that there are a great many more bad things going on and it's ludicrous to point to the good stuff as evidence for his existence and either ignore the bad stuff or make an appeal to ignorance, the "god knows best" or "god works in mysterious ways" argument you just gave. If you want to say he's involved in good stuff, you have to also explain the bad stuff.

A prime example is people who nearly died from illness but got better and thanked god for making them better. They forget if god didn't want them to be sick they wouldn't have got sick in the first place. It's like thanking someone for taking their knife away from your throat.

Mark Hamill

komodosp wrote: »

Another one is, "If God exists why does he let bad things happen? (e.g. Tsunami a few years ago)" or "Why doesn't he do {whatever thing seems logical to do}?". "Why would an infinitely wise God hate homosexuals?" or "Why doesn't he just show us a few miracles to prove he exists?"

I cant say I've ever seen these arguments made. What have seen, and what superficially looks the same but is quite different, are questions like "If god is good, why do bad things happen?", "Why would an infinitely loving/merciful god hate homosexuals" and "If he is so interested in people nowadays believing in him, why doest he just show us a few miracles to prove he exists?". As Sam says, these are done in response to theists making claims about the nature of a god they cant possibly understand, and those claims are quite annoying.

Dades

komodosp wrote: »

In this case we are taking *our* morals or logic and applying them to God. Assume God exists (for the sake of argument), he has a completely different level of knowledge and mental ability to us. Our second guessing what we think a God would or should think, is not an argument against his existence.

I can't believe you're using the "God Moves In Mysterious Ways" argument to counter the glaring holes in the benevolent god concept!

Zillah

komodosp wrote: »

"I don't mind religious people who keep it to themselves, I just hate the ones that try to push their opinions/beliefs on me."
This is an annoying one. The assumption is that the religious person is just a self-important opinionated b****cks who can't stand to be wrong.

If we assume they are from one of the religions where you go to hell if you don't believe in them, then (from their point of view) they are trying to help you. To them, you are like a blind person walking towards a cliff's edge.
"Why didn't you stop Dave from walking off the cliff?"
"Well I didn't want to be rude, pushing my opinions on him"

Dades wrote: »

LOL fairish point!

I've always said this. Its one of the reasons I'm so harsh on moderates on the forum here. At least fundamentalists are internally consistent. I think a person who honestly believes their loved ones are probably going to hell but doesn't do everything in their power to stop them are in a morally untenable position. Only real responses I've gotten to this is faux-liberal equivocation (I have no right to force my beliefs on others) or ludicrous avoidance (They may come to God on their own later in life). Seriously? You see someone ten feet away from a cliff, walking right towards it staring at the clouds, and your response is to hope they'll notice when they're two feet away?

It's the exact same reason I get annoyed at people who take a position that is essentially "I respect that you think the omnipotent creator of the universe insists that gay sex is evil but I'd prefer if you went with what I say instead".

You can't claim to respect their beliefs and then criticise their entirely rational behaviour following from those beliefs.

Of course the only reasonable recourse is to decide to condemn their beliefs for the ludicrous and dangerous delusions that they are, which is not a position most people are comfortable with.

patmartino

Jakkass wrote: »

This assumes that a soul is a tangible thing. Not everyone is convinced of this.

When were we human enough in our evolution for god to give us souls.

komodosp wrote: »

Another one is, "If God exists why does he let bad things happen?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

A prime example is people who nearly died from illness but got better and thanked god for making them better. They forget if god didn't want them to be sick they wouldn't have got sick in the first place. It's like thanking someone for taking their knife away from your throat.

I had a friend who hit a horse while driving at night 11pm last week on a back road in Meath. The car was a write off and it was all the usual ...thank god, he was watching out for me BS. If he existed don't you think he wouldn't have put you in the situation.

KindOfIrish

talkingdog wrote: »

This is the biggest issue I have with religion.

We know the bible is a work of fiction.

All future discussions by theists should be done without reference to the bible.



There is so much contradiction and interpreted meanings in the bible. Just look at Jackass, Fanny, PDN, they can make the bible fit any particular issue.

At least we have that Bible. What have atheists? Fairy tale that something happend 100.000.000 billion years ago?:D No fiction can compete with that!

Sam Vimes

KindOfIrish wrote: »

At least we have that Bible. What have atheists? Fairy tale that something happend 100.000.000 billion years ago?:D No fiction can compete with that!

Eh?

Zillah

KindOfIrish wrote: »

At least we have that Bible. What have atheists? Fairy tale that something happend 100.000.000 billion years ago?:D No fiction can compete with that!

KindOfIrish...hmm. Could we have by chance lucked into getting a US creationist of Irish descent in our midst? This could be entertaining.

Just so you know, current models suggest that the big bang occurred about 13 billion years ago, not one hundred million billion as you suggest.

Turtwig

Zillah wrote: »

Just so you know, current models suggest that the big bang occurred about 13 billion years ago, not one hundred million billion as you suggest.

Heresy!!

13.73±0.12 Billion.:mad:
Not sure what fascist atheist church you get your info from

cavedave

Malty_T

Heresy!!

13.73±0.12 Billion.
Not sure what fascist atheist church you get your info from

He is a blasphemer. Who is up for taking Zillah to switzerland and sacrificing him at the LHC?

roosh

I think it's the same for both "sides" of the debate, both can be equally frustrating, because there are a great many assumptions on both sides that go unquestioned. When two people debate the existence of God, it is usually assumed by both sides that they are debating the same thing, when in actual fact, it can be such that each is arguing against their own particular perception of their "opponents" conceptualisation of what God is.

This often manifests as the strawman argument against "the man in the clouds". Where one person argues against their own personal conceptualisation of God, assuming that it is what is the generally held belief.

As an irreligious/areligious (whatever the term is) believer in God, I find that the atheist argument often boils down to an argument against religion, which is itself a fallacious argument, as God can exist independent of religion. That is perhaps the one I find most annoying.

I think there is probably a whole different need for a discussion on the nature of God, so that both sides know what the other believes, before the question of existence can be discussed. Indeed, the question of existence can often be answered in the course of discussion on the nature of God.


Another one that gets my goat up, is similar to the above, where people argue against their own subjective interpretation of a word or a concept, assuming that their interpretation of it, is the same as the person they are arguing against, or even that it is the standardised interpreation. I say this with particular reference to the argument against the "supernatural".

It is usually argued that belief in the supernatural is irrational and in some way ignorant and non-scientific, when this is based solely on what someone's interpretation of what the word supernatural means, as opposed to how it is defined in the dictionary. Which, when known shows that belief in the supernatural is actually entirely rational, while non-belief in the supernatural is the actual irrational belief - by definition that is.


Another one is the "celestial teapot" argument, where God is likened an invisible teapot in the aether, with certain characteristics added in. The obvious disconnect is usually ignored, as there would perhaps be a meaningful comparison, if there existed somewhere a river of tea from an unknown source, or at least some other material phenomenon that was asserted to have arisen from this teapot.


Also, the one that really gets annoying, moreso after failure to accept or follow logic, is the argument against personal experience as a source of information and knowledge, when in fact it is the only real source of knowledge, as our entire existence is in the form of personal experience, even scientific experiments are subject to the subjectivity of personal experience.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

As an irreligious/areligious (whatever the term is) believer in God, I find that the atheist argument often boils down to an argument against religion, which is itself a fallacious argument, as God can exist independent of religion. That is perhaps the one I find most annoying.

There are a few arguments for a god independent of religion for example the cosmological argument, ontological argument, teleological argument etc which are all flawed in their own special way but are all ultimately pointless because such a god is irrelevant to our existence. A god only becomes relevant when it is theistic, ie when it interacts in our world, and that's where arguing against religion comes in. As a god becomes more and more defined, the harder it is to defend, that's the theistic god but as it becomes less and less defined it becomes irrelevant, that's the deistic god

mangaroosh wrote: »

It is usually argued that belief in the supernatural is irrational and in some way ignorant and non-scientific, when this is based solely on what someone's interpretation of what the word supernatural means, as opposed to how it is defined in the dictionary. Which, when known shows that belief in the supernatural is actually entirely rational, while non-belief in the supernatural is the actual irrational belief - by definition that is.

Now that's a claim and half. Care to justify it? Especially the assertion that belief in the supernatural is scientific.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Another one is the "celestial teapot" argument, where God is likened an invisible teapot in the aether, with certain characteristics added in. The obvious disconnect is usually ignored, as there would perhaps be a meaningful comparison, if there existed somewhere a river of tea from an unknown source, or at least some other material phenomenon that was asserted to have arisen from this teapot.

The celestial teapot is an argument against theistic gods which are given certain characteristics that must be justified, eg that he is a teapot or that he answers prayers. You're mixing it up with an argument for a deistic god, the "something must have created the universe" type arguments, which again are ultimately pointless because even if you 100% prove that something created the universe, there will be a collective cry of "so what?" until you go on to prove the nature of this thing that created the universe, be it a teapot, a spaghetti monster or an intangible being that doesn't like gayness.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Also, the one that really gets annoying, moreso after failure to accept or follow logic, is the argument against personal experience as a source of information and knowledge, when in fact it is the only real source of knowledge, as our entire existence is in the form of personal experience, even scientific experiments are subject to the subjectivity of personal experience.

No, just no. "Personal experience" is the least reliable source of information in existence. Our brains perceive the world through extremely flawed senses that can perceive things that are not there. One of the most important goals of science is to remove personal experience from the equation as much as possible and work with empirical data instead. If you've had a personal experience yourself that's great for you but don't expect anyone else to take it seriously unless you have some externally verifiable evidence. Thousands of people claim to have seen a miracle at Knock a few weeks ago and I don't believe them so I'm not going to accept your unverifiable account either

Have a look at this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

There are a few arguments for a god independent of religion for example the cosmological argument, ontological argument, teleological argument etc which are all flawed in their own special way but are all ultimately pointless because such a god is irrelevant to our existence. A god only becomes relevant when it is theistic, ie when it interacts in our world, and that's where arguing against religion comes in. As a god becomes more and more defined, the harder it is to defend, that's the theistic god but as it becomes less and less defined it becomes irrelevant, that's the deistic god

I know that indeed, but the title of the thread is most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments. I am merely stating the most annoying ones. The discussion of the nature of God is an entirely different conversation and thread [no doubt]. It remains however, the argument against religion, as an argument against God, remains one of the most annoying atheist arguments.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now that's a claim and half. Care to justify it? Especially the assertion that belief in the supernatural is scientific.

The claim was not that belief in the supernatural was scientific, rather rational. The word supernatural is defined as:


Supernatural
• adjective 1 attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.
• noun (the supernatural) supernatural manifestations or events.

Something supernatural is something which is attributable to a force which is beyond scientific understanding, or the laws of nature, so it is the force which is beyond scientific understanding, or the laws of nature.

Now, something which is beyond scientific understanding, merely means that there is no contemporary, scientific theory or rationalisation for the force to which a phenomenon is attributable. It could perhaps be argued that this means there it will never be understandable by scientific inquiry, however this is not really a rational interpretation, as it is impossible to say with any degree certainty what will and will not be understandable by scientific inquiry. Therefore, it must be assumed that it means beyond scientific understanding at this present moment in time.

If it is beyond the laws of nature, then for us to be able to say with any degree of certainty, that this is the case, then we would have to know exactly what all the laws of nature are. This of course is somewhat limited by our scientific understanding, and is almost precluded by the scientific method of inquiry - as it is taken that we can never assume to know all the laws of nature.

Of course, if any phenomenon does actually occur in the universe, then it must by definition be attributable to the laws of nature, but again, it is our understanding of the laws of nature that determine how we could classify it, as opposed to how it would be objectively classified.


If we look at some practical examples, we can see that something can be both natural (or attributable to the laws of nature) and supernatural at the same time. For example, the force of Gravity, or the famous observation of the effects of Gravity. The falling apple (or other observed phenomenon) was attributable, at the time to a force that was "beyond scientific understanding". This is very much a natural force, yet before Newton's theory and Einstein's application it was "beyond scientific understanding", and therefore supernatural - by definition. The same applies for every single phenomenon attributable to any scientifically observable phenomenon now and until the meaning of the word evolves.


So belief in the supernatural is an entirely rational belief, once the meaning of the word is understood.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The celestial teapot is an argument against theistic gods which are given certain characteristics that must be justified, eg that he is a teapot or that he answers prayers. You're mixing it up with an argument for a deistic god, the "something must have created the universe" type arguments, which again are ultimately pointless because even if you 100% prove that something created the universe, there will be a collective cry of "so what?" until you go on to prove the nature of this thing that created the universe, be it a teapot, a spaghetti monster or an intangible being that doesn't like gayness.

My bad actually, I'd forgotten the details of that one.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No, just no. "Personal experience" is the least reliable source of information in existence. Our brains perceive the world through extremely flawed senses that can perceive things that are not there. One of the most important goals of science is to remove personal experience from the equation as much as possible and work with empirical data instead. If you've had a personal experience yourself that's great for you but don't expect anyone else to take it seriously unless you have some externally verifiable evidence. Thousands of people claim to have seen a miracle at Knock a few weeks ago and I don't believe them so I'm not going to accept your unverifiable account either

The thing is, that personal experience is the only manner in which we can truly know something, that is real, as opposed to conceptual. In fact personall experience is the only manner in which factual, or scientific rationalisations can actually be verified, otherwise they are accepted on the basis of partially sighted faith.

If one reads a piece of scientific evidence, without actaully carrying out an experiment to verify a claim themselves, and thereby experience the experiment, then they are relying on their faith in the scientific method, or their faith in those that carry out experiments to be completely free from any inherent biases, or unconscious assumptions. The problem is, that if there is an unconscious assumption that is applicable to all of mankind, then this will generally manifest itself in the scientific theories and findings. With the most notable example, the assumption of the existence of time - but that is a different discussion.


To use an anolgy that should hopefully show why personal experience is the only way in which a person can truly know something, if we look at sex (sexual intercourse).

Firstly, there is a wide variety of scientific information on sex, there is lots of anecdotal evidence, there is softcore pornography, there is hardcore porn, there is second hand stories from friends, there is voyeurism, if one so wishes. To this extent, a person can know a great deal of information about sex, there will be no doubt about its existence, as we are all testament to its reality. Yet knowing all this information about sex, doesn't amount to knowledge of the experience itself, and it never can. The only way in which a person can truly understand the experience is by experiencing it for themselves.

Another thing that follows on from personal experience is the ability to meaningfully interpret information about something, or an experience. Again, with regard to sex, the only way in which a person can meaningfully interpret the great body of knowledge on sex, is by experiencing if for themselves. They will be in a better position to discern what is accurate info. and what isn't.

The issue of personal experience is inescapable, and even with scientific enquiry it is central, where a shared experience of an experiment is necessary to verify results. The way in which science "is done" may have changed [It may or may not, I'm not entirely sure], but if we look at the contemporary approach with regard to theoretical physics, we can see it is similar to the experience of sex above, where a great deal of theoretical info is developed first, but the only way in which it can truly be known to be true is by experiencing it through an experiment - witnessing an experiment or witnessing the results of measuring devices is also a form of experience it must be remembered.

In fact, much like spirituality, science points to a shared experience in order to verify results. With regard to spirituality, which is at the core of religion, the same goes. The information is aimed at guiding people to a personal experience so that they can verify the information provided. Well that is not necessarily true, the verification of the info is not the important part, but rather a natural outcome of a personal experience.


So, while a persons own personal account should not be taken as evidence or verification of string theory, so too should a persons personal experience not be taken as verification for the existence of God, but rather the guidelines that are laid out to verify the "experiment", should be followed, if one wishes to be in a position to verify or deny the claims made.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Have a look at this video:

I'll check that out, cheers

EDIT: re-traction of ludicrous comment "or to have the entitlement to an opinion on the matter bestowed upon them"

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

I know that indeed, but the title of the thread is most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments. I am merely stating the most annoying ones. The discussion of the nature of God is an entirely different conversation and thread [no doubt]. It remains however, the argument against religion, as an argument against God, remains one of the most annoying atheist arguments.

In what way is it annoying? An argument religion is meant as an argument against that particular religion's god, not gods in general

mangaroosh wrote: »

The claim was not that belief in the supernatural was scientific, rather rational. The word supernatural is defined as:


Supernatural
• adjective 1 attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.
• noun (the supernatural) supernatural manifestations or events.

...

If we look at some practical examples, we can see that something can be both natural (or attributable to the laws of nature) and supernatural at the same time. For example, the force of Gravity, or the famous observation of the effects of Gravity. The falling apple (or other observed phenomenon) was attributable, at the time to a force that was "beyond scientific understanding". This is very much a natural force, yet before Newton's theory and Einstein's application it was "beyond scientific understanding", and therefore supernatural - by definition

Eh no, supernatural is not defined as "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding ". Supernatural means, above or beyond nature, ie it breaks the laws of nature and it has nothing to do with scientific understanding. Gravity was never at any point supernatural. Where did you get that definition of the word? My hunch is it's your own definition

mangaroosh wrote: »

The thing is, that personal experience is the only manner in which we can truly know something, that is real, as opposed to conceptual.

If one reads a piece of scientific evidence, without actaully carrying out an experiment to verify a claim themselves, and thereby experience the experiment, then they are relying on their faith in the scientific method, or their faith in those that carry out experiments to be completely free from any inherent biases, or unconscious assumptions.

A nice philosophical idea but not practically applicable or indeed true at all. Science verifies things using scientific instruments, data and repeatable experiments and personal experience has nothing to do with it, other than you also personally verifying the experiment. All science goes through a rigorous process of peer review where hundreds of scientists verify the claims for themselves before a claim is accepted

mangaroosh wrote: »

The problem is, that if there is an unconscious assumption that is applicable to all of mankind, then this will generally manifest itself in the scientific theories and findings. With the most notable example, the assumption of the existence of time - but that is a different discussion.

So what I'm giving as the inherent problem of personal experience, you are giving as the problem with science
Yes indeed if scientists just accept what other scientists say that causes problems, which is why they don't do that. They recognise the problems inherent in personal experience. Scientific theories avoid this problem principally by making predictions that would falsify the theory, eg if I predict that an eclipse will happen at 3pm on Sunday and it doesn't happen, the theory is falsified and no amount of misinterpreting evidence will change that. You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that science operates under the same flawed practices as pseudo science. It doesn't

philologos

Sam: Why on earth would a God be irrelevant to our existence if one existed? Surely that's absurd?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam: Why on earth would a God be irrelevant to our existence if one existed? Surely that's absurd?

Well maybe he created us in a way that He didn't want us to know about Him, and he even designed the world in way that left no evidence of him?
In other words he only wants us to live our lives without any interference from him or knowledge of him.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam: Why on earth would a God be irrelevant to our existence if one existed? Surely that's absurd?

A god is only relevant if it interacts with the world. Proving that something created it does not prove that it interacts with it and certainly not that it interacts in the ways that the world religions say it does

philologos

If we did know that a God existed, there is no way that that knowledge would not change human living. There is also no way that we would keep ourselves from trying to find out more. That's why I think the notion that God would be irrelevant is just outright ridiculous.

Creation alone would be an interaction in our affairs. If such a God is capable of this creation, it seems unreasonable that this God wouldn't be able to be involved in our lives, or in the world around us.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

If we did know that a God existed, there is no way that that knowledge would not change human living. There is also no way that we would keep ourselves from trying to find out more. That's why I think the notion that God would be irrelevant is just outright ridiculous.

Creation alone would be an interaction in our affairs. If such a God is capable of this creation, it seems unreasonable that this God wouldn't be able to be involved in our lives, or in the world around us.

It's called the prime directive.:)

There can be no interference with the internal development of civilizations.
Jakkass, when we create our own universe (which I believe we will:)).
We won't interfere either.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

It's called the prime directive.:)

There can be no interference with the internal development of civilizations.
Jakkass, when we create our own universe (which I believe we will:)).
We won't interfere either.

You provide no reasoning as to why this is the case.

There is no reason why God if He is the author of physics, biology and all other scientific laws, the author of everything right up to our bones cannot alter this universe physically or take interest in our well being.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

If we did know that a God existed, there is no way that that knowledge would not change human living. There is also no way that we would keep ourselves from trying to find out more. That's why I think the notion that God would be irrelevant is just outright ridiculous.

Creation alone would be an interaction in our affairs. If such a God is capable of this creation, it seems unreasonable that this God wouldn't be able to be involved in our lives, or in the world around us.

No one said he wouldn't be able to, just that you'd have to show that he in fact is. God works in mysterious ways and who are you to question his greater purpose? Maybe his divine plans involves no interaction whatsoever. What seems unreasonable to me is assuming what an all powerful all knowing being would want to do

philologos

You've already laid down the assumption if x then y.

X being God's existence
Y being that it would be irrelevant.

It's up to you to show consistent reasoning as to why God's existence would be irrelevant to human beings.

I find it absurd to think that a higher power could exist, and not lead us with any guidance about how best to live in the world that He has created.

What would be the reason not to?

Turtwig

Well let's pose the scenario where the folks at CERN create a new universe.
And by their genius and expertise they can monitor and interfere at every single point in it at any given time i.e they are omniscient and omnipotent.
Under this scenario the temptation of a scientist would be just to monitor the world and see what happens.
(Then the next time around they might interfere to create a better result or they might not.)
Using this analogy you should be able to see why if the creator of all creation was an experimenter then S/he/it might be more interested in merely observing his/her/its experiment - intervening would muck up the naturally occurring results, leaving it unclear how to go about improving that universe for its next iteration.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

You've already laid down the assumption if x then y.

X being God's existence
Y being that it would be irrelevant.

It's up to you to show consistent reasoning as to why God's existence would be irrelevant to human beings.

I find it absurd to think that a higher power could exist, and not lead us with any guidance about how best to live in the world that He has created.

What would be the reason not to?

Firstly, I didn't say a god, I said something that created the universe. You have made the assumption that it's a god and you have made the assumption that it has a desire and ability to interact the world, two assumptions that must be justified and exclamations that you find it absurd that it wouldn't is not a justification. But if you insist I'll give three possible justifications:

1. The thing that created the universe is not an intelligent being

2. It's all an experiment

3. To preserve free will

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Well let's pose the scenario where the folks at CERN create a new universe.
And by their genius and expertise they can monitor and interfere at every single point in it at any given time i.e they are omniscient and omnipotent.
Under this scenario the temptation of a scientist would be just to monitor the world and see what happens.

How can human beings be omniscient, and omnipotent?

Malty_T wrote: »

(Then the next time around they might interfere to create a better result or they might not.)
Using this analogy you should be able to see why if the creator of all creation was an experimenter then S/he/it might be more interested in merely observing his/her/its experiment - intervening would muck up the naturally occurring results, leaving it unclear how to go about improving that universe for its next iteration.

This analogy is lacking. It assumes that humans can have traits associated with divinity. It gives us no enlightenment as to why God wouldn't be involved in His creation.

No offence is intended by this but that's essentially waffle.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

How can human beings be omniscient, and omnipotent?



This analogy is lacking. It assumes that humans can have traits associated with divinity. It gives us no enlightenment as to why God wouldn't be involved in His creation.

No offence is intended by this but that's essentially waffle.

If a Human being creates a universe Jakkass and can intervene in that universe in any way they like at any place or point in time, then they are omniscient and omnipotent relative to that universe.
The analogy isn't lacking, it is creating the plausible scenario where God was merely an experimenter and all he wants to do is observe his creation.

philologos

Human beings in no respect can be omniscient, as that would mean knowing everything, including everything in your universe. Likewise omnipotency would mean not only having power in a limited amount of space, but having power over everything. This is why your analogy is implausible.

You've not clearly explained to me why a God would not involve Himself in His universe, or essentially why a God would not care for His creation.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In what way is it annoying? An argument religion is meant as an argument against that particular religion's god, not gods in general

It is annoying because of the unquestioned assumption that all religions believe in a different God, as opposed to individual religions being a cultural interpretation of what God is, particularly when Jews, Christian and Muslims all believe in the same God, but have a differing cultural representation of God, and perhaps follow the teachings of a different prophet.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh no, supernatural is not defined as "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding ". Supernatural means, above or beyond nature, ie it breaks the laws of nature and it has nothing to do with scientific understanding. Gravity was never at any point supernatural. Where did you get that definition of the word? My hunch is it's your own definition

No, it's not mine at all, I'm afraid I plagerised it from the Oxford English Dictionary: Online

Just to re-iterate:
Supernatural

• adjective 1 attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.
• noun (the supernatural) supernatural manifestations or events.


With regard to your point above "Supernatural means, above or beyond nature, ie it breaks the laws of nature", this goes back to something that was touched on. To say that something breaks the laws of nature is limited by our understanding of what the laws of nature are. In order to say that something definitively breaks the laws of nature, we have to know what all the laws of nature are.
A nice philosophical idea but not practically applicable or indeed true at all. Science verifies things using scientific instruments, data and repeatable experiments and personal experience has nothing to do with it, other than you also personally verifying the experiment. All science goes through a rigorous process of peer review where hundreds of scientists verify the claims for themselves before a claim is accepted

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So what I'm giving as the inherent problem of personal experience, you are giving as the problem with science

It must be remembered that science is the manifestation of mankinds rationalisation of the world around "him", or indeed "his" personal experience, and is therefore subject to the inherent problems of personal experience, despite the noble attempts to diminish them.

There are certain base assumptions of mankind that go unquestioned, and so will be reflected in any attempt to rationalise the nature of existence or the laws of nature.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes indeed if scientists just accept what other scientists say that causes problems, which is why they don't do that. They recognise the problems inherent in personal experience. Scientific theories avoid this problem principally by making predictions that would falsify the theory, eg if I predict that an eclipse will happen at 3pm on Sunday and it doesn't happen, the theory is falsified and no amount of misinterpreting evidence will change that. You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that science operates under the same flawed practices as pseudo science. It doesn't

How is your theory verified, without someone personally experiencing whether or not there is an eclipse at 3pm? Someone has to experience it either directly through observation, or indirectly through the observation or measurement of attributable factors. This is unavoidable.

So, it is not a mistaken impression about how science operates, rather a logical conclusion that scientific inquiry must operate on the exact same basis as the nature of existence, through personal experience. The fact that there is consensus among a group as to the validity of a particular claim, can firstly only be achieved through common personal experience and translation of that experience using standardised terms and measurements - in much the same way as language is the tranlsation of common experiences using standardised terms. Secondly, consensus among a group is still inherently subjective, it is merely an agreement with regard to a common experience e.g. the observation of a phenomenon or the witnessing of results.



Again, just to get back to the analogy of theoretical physics and sex. There is a great amount of information, theories, mathematical evidence, etc. with regard to theoretical physics, and there is an abundance of info. with regard to sex, however, in order to verify these claims, personal experience is required in order to corroborate the evidential support, and to allow it to be meaningfully interpreted.

If one were to try to describe the experience of sex to a virgin, it would be impossible for the virgin to know that what is being said is accurate. In order to verify the claims, the virgin must have sex, usually quite a few times, depending on the information to be verified.


In a similar way, religion and more pointedly the spiritual core of most [if not all religions] all present a lot of information, and most point to personal spiritual experience. In the same way as science relies on following certain methodology to verify a result, so too does religion and spirituality. In order to verify the information provided one must first follow the given directions, and personally experience what is being claimed.

As with science, the ability of the scientist, the quality of their training, the ability of their teacher and their adherence to certain guidelines, and application of their spiritual practice will materially affect the outcome of their "experiment", and therefore their ability to interpret the information.


Now, I have no doubt that this will be ridiculed, but it is fact.

roosh

Malty_T wrote: »

Well maybe he created us in a way that He didn't want us to know about Him, and he even designed the world in way that left no evidence of him?
In other words he only wants us to live our lives without any interference from him or knowledge of him.

I just wanted to jump in and suggest that the reference to God as "He", "him", is potentially what has lead to some of the misunderstanding.

I would suggest, and this is only my own personal theory, that the reference to God in the masculine, is merely a linguistical phenomenon, as opposed to a direct comment on the nature of God. In much the same way as a Cup is referred to in the feminine sense in German.

I think the same can be said for english words, but I am not too well up on that, someone else might be better placed to confirm that.

SarahChambers

Excellent thread. I think atheists are often very self congratulatory and don't concentrate a bit too much on the faulty arguments of others when they themselves commit logical fallacies.

One such fallacy which I don't like is when atheists use arguments which apply to the existence of the Judeo-Christian god against the idea of god in general. There are arguments, and admittedly very convincing ones, which apply only to a specific god, which is a much easier god to argue against than a more general god.

I also really hate it when atheists think that the religious are stupid, and the reason that they don't reject religion is stupidity. It really hurts the atheist cause.

I am an non theist myself in case you are wondering, which you undoubtedly are

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You've not clearly explained to me why a God would not involve Himself in His universe, or essentially why a God would not care for His creation.

It is actually some what nonsensical to say that a omniscient being would care for his creation. An omniscient being knows everything. An omnipotent being can do everything. Interacting with his creation would therefore be irrelevant, since he knows everything anyway and everything happens exact as he knows it will.

What would be the point of interaction?

To use another analogy it would be like me watching a computer program I wrote line for line in a debugger to see what happens. If I know the program works then I wouldn't ever do that. I would just let the program run. There is no point to interacting with the program line for line because I already know exactly what the program is going to do. I would only interact with it if I didn't know what it was going to do and thus had to do something at certain points in the program.

I write the program and if I'm confident that I know what will happen I never interact with the lines of code again.

The same would be true of a omnipotent/omniscient creator. What would be the purpose of interacting at specific points in his universe? He already knows how everything is going to pan out, and every thing pans out as he set it up in the first place.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Human beings in no respect can be omniscient, as that would mean knowing everything, including everything in your universe. Likewise omnipotency would mean not only having power in a limited amount of space, but having power over everything. This is why your analogy is implausible.

You've not clearly explained to me why a God would not involve Himself in His universe, or essentially why a God would not care for His creation.

And you have not explained why he would. You've made the classic theistic mistake of thinking that it's acceptable for you to assume you're right and that the burden of proof is on other people to prove you wrong. If you want to say that the thing that created the universe is a god and that it involves itself directly in our lives you must justify those assertions

mangaroosh wrote: »

It is annoying because of the unquestioned assumption that all religions believe in a different God, as opposed to individual religions being a cultural interpretation of what God is, particularly when Jews, Christian and Muslims all believe in the same God, but have a differing cultural representation of God, and perhaps follow the teachings of a different prophet.

Some religions claim to believe in the same god but with different interpretations of it, some believe in very different gods. But each of them has mutually exclusive claims about their respective gods. They cannot all be right but they can all be wrong

mangaroosh wrote: »

No, it's not mine at all, I'm afraid I plagerised it from the Oxford English Dictionary: Online

Just to re-iterate:
Supernatural

• adjective 1 attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. 2 exceptionally or extraordinarily great.
• noun (the supernatural) supernatural manifestations or events.


With regard to your point above "Supernatural means, above or beyond nature, ie it breaks the laws of nature", this goes back to something that was touched on. To say that something breaks the laws of nature is limited by our understanding of what the laws of nature are. In order to say that something definitively breaks the laws of nature, we have to know what all the laws of nature are.

Eh no we don't. I know that, for example, gravity makes things accelerate at 9.8m/s^2. I don't have to know anything about the boiling point of water to know that law. You do not have to know every single law of nature to know some of them. If you want to use the word supernatural to mean "something that has not yet been explained" with no further connotations you can do that but you should be aware that no one you're talking to uses the word in that way, their word for such things is simply "unexplained" and the word supernatural carries connotations far beyond simply being unexplained. All that's going to happen is a lot of frustrating arguments because you're using the word to mean different things and things that meet your definition of supernatural do not meet theirs and never will. You should always at the very least explain at the start what your definition of the word is to prevent confusion, and of course watch people tell you that unexplained =/=supernatural
.

Btw, if you want to say that we cannot say that something has broken the laws of nature until we know all the laws of nature, then nothing will ever meet the definition the people you are talking to use for the word supernatural

mangaroosh wrote: »

It must be remembered that science is the manifestation of mankinds rationalisation of the world around "him", or indeed "his" personal experience, and is therefore subject to the inherent problems of personal experience, despite the noble attempts to diminish them.

This line of conversation started with you finding it annoying how people dismiss personal experience and all you've done is go on about the problems with personal experience and claim that science suffers from them. But it's becoming quite clear that you don't understand how science operates. If it operated the way you think it does it would not work. At all. But the fact that I'm writing this on a mobile phone and am going to stick it on the internet to be read worldwide in seconds shows that it works extremely well. The evidence to support the scientific method is all around you and you should look up a bit more about how science works before you continue to criticise it for something it is not guilty of

As I said at the start, personal experience is the least reliable source of information and instead of arguing with that you have tried to argue that all of science is just personal experience but it's not. It's just not. Nothing in science goes unquestioned. This is actually covered quite well in the video I linked you to, you are critical of atheists for their scepticism but you are fiercely sceptical of science, a field that emphasises scepticism. Ironically, you are sceptical of scepticism