Most annoying theist lines of argument?

eblistic

As I look around the discussions here I'm struck by how well some posters calmly dismantle arguments for the existence of some variety of God.

As this is easier done on boards than in a real-time conversation I was just wondering what arguments, if any, come closest to winding you up to the point of losing your cool?

(PS: Any religious apologists who go on to try to use responses to this question to bait passionate atheists in the future should be ashamed of themselves!)

doctoremma

eblistic wrote: »

what arguments, if any, come closest to winding you up to the point of losing your cool?

Re: existence of god. I get really annoyed at the complete misunderstanding of "burden of proof". And the idea that if you can't prove god doesn't exist, it somehow means that s/he/it is likely to exist.

Re: religion. People who don't realise the effects that their choice to be religious may have on those who don't believe. There are a lot of very nice believers out there who fail to see that by subscribing to "the club", they are supporting a variety of stuff that they may not want to.

Oh, and in both cases, the argument from majority:

"There are so many people who believe in god, there must be some truth in it". Err, no, that doesn't follow at all.

"Well, there's so many of us, you're just going to have to put up with it". You can practically see the smug grin on their face as they type this. I'm having to put up with all the time, don't you know...

toiletduck

Probably the one where all the usual arguments for a designed universe are trotted out (fine tuning etc) and then out of nowhere, an interfering God of the monotheistic variety pops up. Then before you can even question that, it's been decided that it's their own particular brand of God.

Sam Vimes

The most annoying one for me is the ontological argument

One example of it is:

1. God is something of which nothing greater can be thought.
2. God may exist in the understanding.
3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality

It can be summarised as: if we can conceive of god he must exist. The fact that this argument is not universally laughed at as the most ridiculous nonsense ever conceived of is mind boggling.

Another very annoying thing is that you ask them to back something up or justify something and the justification only makes sense if you begin with the assumption that god is real and the bible is true. It just wastes everyone's time because if I accepted that assumption we wouldn't be having the conversation.

Sam Vimes

toiletduck wrote: »

Probably the one where all the usual arguments for a designed universe are trotted out (fine tuning etc) and then out of nowhere, an interfering God of the monotheistic variety pops up. Then before you can even question that, it's been decided that it's their own particular brand of God.

That too. Even the fine tuning arguments are just texas sharp shooter fallacies


edit:Intelligent design wins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6arhd4Kq1cI

Turtwig

Anything apologetic as they're usually ultimate suckage appealing to common sense.:mad:

doctoremma

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The most annoying one for me is the ontological argument


One example of it is:

1. God is something of which nothing greater can be thought.
2. God may exist in the understanding.
3. It is greater to exist in reality and in the understanding than just in understanding.
4. Therefore, God exists in reality

Despite trying, I've never managed to provoke this out of a believer (which is obviously a shame, as it's so easy to shoot down).

PDN

doctoremma wrote: »

Despite trying, I've never managed to provoke this out of a believer (which is obviously a shame, as it's so easy to shoot down).

It's really annoying when people persist in being made out of flesh and blood rather than straw, isn't it?

Most Christians have never heard of the ontological argument, and if you try to explain it to them they will look at you as if you have two heads. I remember studying it in Philosophy of Religion class and nobody thought it made much sense.

There probably are people somewhere who would use the ontological argument as a proof for God's existence, but I haven't met any.

cavedave

eblistic

I was just wondering what arguments, if any, come closest to winding you up to the point of losing your cool?

It does not really bother me if someone has an imaginary sky friend. If they try stop me doing something because of what that imaginary sky friend tells them that bothers me.

Galvasean

"Science can't explain EVERYTHING!"
This dives me mad. So what if there are a few gaps in scientific understanding? That does not give you free reign to insert your favourite God into the gaps.

Then there's, "I think, therefore I am", which to me is a fancy way of saying, "I have deluded myself into believing whatever the heck I like."

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

It's really annoying when people persist in being made out of flesh and blood rather than straw, isn't it?

Most Christians have never heard of the ontological argument, and if you try to explain it to them they will look at you as if you have two heads. I remember studying it in Philosophy of Religion class and nobody thought it made much sense.

There probably are people somewhere who would use the ontological argument as a proof for God's existence, but I haven't met any.

Neither have I, thank Gawd.:)

"Science can't explain EVERYTHING!"
This dives me mad. So what if there are a few gaps in scientific understanding? That does not give you free reign to insert your favourite God into the gaps.

That one drives me mad too.:(

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

It's really annoying when people persist in being made out of flesh and blood rather than straw, isn't it?

Most Christians have never heard of the ontological argument, and if you try to explain it to them they will look at you as if you have two heads. I remember studying it in Philosophy of Religion class and nobody thought it made much sense.

There probably are people somewhere who would use the ontological argument as a proof for God's existence, but I haven't met any.

True, it is rare to come across it, most people can immediately see the flaws. It's the inanity of the argument that makes it stand out despite its infrequent use

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Most Christians have never heard of the ontological argument, and if you try to explain it to them they will look at you as if you have two heads. I remember studying it in Philosophy of Religion class and nobody thought it made much sense.

There probably are people somewhere who would use the ontological argument as a proof for God's existence, but I haven't met any.

Interestingly, the only people to try the ontological argument on me were jumped up Arts students who had a few philosophy lectures under their belts. Now these people were not religious par sé, but wanted to see if they could get a rise out of that atheist chap. It's quite easy to dismantle said argument though. Just have them repeat it slowly. It quickly dawns on them that what they are saying makes little, if any sense. Then you can ask them if they think that line of reasoning would hold up in court. They usually toddle off and resume chatting about how the new Killers song is 'spiritual'.

In credit to religious people, I think they've come far enough to realise that such a lame argument can't possibly hold up in the real world.

Dades

All iterations of: "God moves in mysterious ways."

Roughly translated as:

"What has occurred is completely at odds with the notion of a benevolent God, but claiming that God knows best allows us to avoid facing up to the reality of this situation."

liamw

• I've had an experience with God
• Fine tuning argument for a theistic god
• Complexity....
• Argument from majority
• God is comforting, helped me get through a hard time etc. <-- yep still hear this one sometimes
• So what happens when we die then?
• Something good happens, therefore god exists
• Praying for things to happen and then if it does happen attributing it to god, if it doesn't happen.. ignore or 'it was meant to be that way'
• Using deist arguments to validate a theist bronze age god as described in an old book
• Where could we get our morals from?
• You can't prove god doesn't exist
• ASSUMING THAT IF SCIENCE CAN'T FULLY EXPLAIN SOMETHING, THEN GOD IS THE ANSWER (as if they're inversely proportional)

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

• I've had an experience with God
• Fine tuning argument for a theistic god
• Complexity....
• Argument from majority
• God is comforting, helped me get through a hard time etc. <-- yep still hear this one sometimes
• So what happens when we die then?
• Something good happens, therefore god exists
• Praying for things to happen and then if it does happen attributing it to god, if it doesn't happen.. ignore or 'it was meant to be that way'
• Using deist arguments to validate a theist bronze age god as described in an old book
• Where could we get our morals from?
• You can't prove god doesn't exist
• ASSUMING THAT IF SCIENCE CAN'T FULLY EXPLAIN SOMETHING, THEN GOD IS THE ANSWER (as if they're inversely proportional)

That summaries it quite nicely

Tim Robbins

Ontological argument is to do with objects and properties.

"God is the perfect object. Existence is a property of a perfect object. So therefore God exists."

The fallacy is that existence is not a property of a perfect object.
In fact, "Perfect", on it's own implies no properties.

JimiTime

Theists smell too. Stupid God botherers!

nozzferrahhtoo

I do not mind ANY of the arguments for god. I want to hear them which is why I am on sites like this. If someone has one, I want to hear it. The problem is no one seems to have ANY.

That said therefore, what annoys me are the ones that are not even arguments for god but are excuses for why the are NOT going to give you arguments for god. The examples that spring to mind are:

1) I would give you evidence but you: do not really want it / would not accept it anyway / will not understand it.

2) There is loads of evidence; you just have to find it. (Err duh that’s why I am asking you)

3) What do you mean be “Evidence” anyway? Let us look at this word and what it means.

4) There’s loads of evidence you just don’t accept it because you hate god.

So on so forth. Essentially it is not arguments but cowardly cop outs. As soon as you hear these words you know the person is covering for having nothing.

Galvasean

JimiTime wrote: »

Theists smell too. Stupid God botherers!

Stupid impressions of atheists are quite annoying too.

JimiTime

Galvasean wrote: »

Stupid impressions of atheists are quite annoying too.

Lucky It wasn't an impression of an atheist then. Rather an impression of a groupthinker generalising. Some of you really need to get your heads out of each others @rses. It will benefit you tenfold. Who knows, you may even learn something, and develop wisdom.

Naz_st

I was just wondering what arguments, if any, come closest to winding you up to the point of losing your cool?

"Atheism is a religion/faith too, who's to say which one of our 'faiths' is right"

Oh boy does that one p*ss me off!

doctoremma

PDN wrote: »

It's really annoying when people persist in being made out of flesh and blood rather than straw, isn't it?

I don't see how it falls into the category of "strawman".

PDN wrote: »

Most Christians have never heard of the ontological argument, and if you try to explain it to them they will look at you as if you have two heads. I remember studying it in Philosophy of Religion class and nobody thought it made much sense

No sh*t

doctoremma

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ontological argument is to do with objects and properties.

"God is the perfect object. Existence is a property of a perfect object. So therefore God exists."

The fallacy is that existence is not a property of a perfect object.
In fact, "Perfect", on it's own implies no properties.

I like the reverse argument (can't remember who to give credit to):

Creation = most fabulous thing ever, linked to the ability of the creator.
The bigger the handicap, the more impressive the feat.
The biggest handicap we can think of is non-existence.
Therefore, god doesn't exist.

Sam Vimes

doctoremma wrote: »

I like the reverse argument (can't remember who to give credit to):

Creation = most fabulous thing ever, linked to the ability of the creator.
The bigger the handicap, the more impressive the feat.
The biggest handicap we can think of is non-existence.
Therefore, god doesn't exist.

That was Dawkins in the god delusion I believe

edit: yup http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_ontological.html

Dades

JimiTime wrote: »

Some of you really need to get your heads out of each others @rses. It will benefit you tenfold. Who knows, you may even learn something, and develop wisdom.

Ahh now. This thread could only be an irritant to people who have used any of the aforementioned arguments.

This isn't (or shouldn't be) an "all theists are stupid" thread. It's really a thread attacking the posts, as it were, and not the posters.

doctoremma

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That was Dawkins in the god delusion I believe

edit: yup http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_ontological.html

Ah, but he was quoting Douglas Gasking, apparently. Sorry to be pedantic about referencing, it's the scientist thing....:)

edit: Although I clearly wasn't that pedantic first time around...

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

"Science can't explain EVERYTHING!"

I loved Dara O'Briain's response to this:

"Of course science doesn't know everything, because if it did, it'd stop."

liamw

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

4) There’s loads of evidence you just don’t accept it because you hate god.

So on so forth. Essentially it is not arguments but cowardly cop outs. As soon as you hear these words you know the person is covering for having nothing.

5) You have to accept god before you can see the evidence

Turtwig

6) You'll turn to God on your deathbed just you wait!

lmaopml

eblistic wrote: »

As I look around the discussions here I'm struck by how well some posters calmly dismantle arguments for the existence of some variety of God.

As this is easier done on boards than in a real-time conversation I was just wondering what arguments, if any, come closest to winding you up to the point of losing your cool?

(PS: Any religious apologists who go on to try to use responses to this question to bait passionate atheists in the future should be ashamed of themselves!)

*Adjusts specs, sits back and takes notes* :pac:

Sam Vimes

One I kind of feel bad about pointing out the flaws in is the whole argument from personal experience thing. We all know that people from all religions and none see mad stuff all the time and none of it is sent by god but you'd almost feel guilty pointing that out to someone whose entire faith seems to be built on the time when Jesus appeared as a glowing orb or whatever. Almost

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Who knows, you may even learn something, and develop wisdom.

Bad arguments are bad arguments, whether they come from atheist, theist or agnostic.

As Dades points out the only thing some one has to worry about with this thread, or feel bad about, is if they use these arguments (which I'm sure you don't Jimi :pac:) Theists who do might learn something from having a scan through this thread.

And considering the vitriol that some of us face when discuss such issues with theists it is hardly surprising people want to blow off a little steam here.

Sam Vimes

And theres' never a bad time to post these videos:

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo

Just about everything from that user is excellent

Zombrex

"It is arrogant and presumptuous of you to try and judge God, such as judging him evil"

Apparently it isn't arrogant though for a theist to judge God good.

While bad theistic arguments cause a rolling of eyes that is the only one that actually frustrates and annoys me to a high degree.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

"It is arrogant and presumptuous of you to try and judge God, such as judging him evil"

Apparently though it isn't arrogant though for a theist to judge God good.

While bad theistic arguments cause a rolling of eyes that is the only one that actually frustrates and annoys me to a high degree.

It's a variant of the "god moves in mysterious ways" cop out. The thing is that atheists define what's moral based on whether it hurts someone or not whereas for a theist, what's moral is whatever god does or tells you to do, so sacrificing your children or invading and enslaving other nations is fine as long as god says so. I think that is the single most dangerous aspect of religion, the reduction of morality to an argument from authority

Turtwig

This sophist (is sophist the right word?) crap...

It did produce an excellent response though..

Urge a theist to watch the last two.

Goduznt Xzst

In regards to ID'rs whenever I hear someone say "teach the controversy" I feel like punching them right in the solar plexus.

Biggest one with the religious is

"Without faith you won't ever understand and accept the existence of God. God's spirit only show itself to you when you come to him through Christ"

When I say I used to believe in God, it's followed by

"Yeah, but you didn't truly believe in God, otherwise you'd still believe in him"

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Biggest one with the religious is

"Without faith you won't ever understand and accept the existence of God. God's spirit only show itself to you when you come to him through Christ"

When I say I used to believe in God, it's followed by

"Yeah, but you didn't truly believe in God, otherwise you'd still believe in him"

God is supposed to be all loving and he's supposed to desperately want you to avoid hell but he only appears to random people in visions and only answers ambiguous prayers where you can't be sure he did anything at all. We all know that an amputee will never grow his arm back no matter how much he prays. He wilfully denies proof from people and then expects them to believe anyway, he makes this belief despite lack of proof the central aspect of the religion. Those who believe are rewarded with eternal life and those who don't are punished for eternity. It doesn't matter if someone is a child rapist, as long as they can bring themselves to believe that some Jewish guy rose from the dead 2000 years ago they're getting eternal bliss.

You see theists saying that we're given the opportunity to accept faith and it's our choice to reject it so we're bringing eternal damnation on ourselves. My arse! If I don't find something convincing then all I can do is lie to myself and others to try to appear as if I believe it and no amount of threats of punishment for non-belief will change that, especially because several religions threaten the same thing. Believing something is not a choice and neither is it a virtue, never mind the only virtue that should grant you eternal life. Belief despite lack of evidence makes you gullible and credulous.

Flamed Diving

Without religion/god, there can be no morals.

That statement makes me angry on so many levels.

Sam Vimes

Flamed Diving wrote: »

That statement makes me angry on so many levels.

Malty_T wrote: »

6) You'll turn to God on your deathbed just you wait!

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

6) You'll turn to God on your deathbed just you wait!

The problem with that one is that you can't prove it wrong - at least, if you do, you're dead so you'll get no satisfaction from it.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

The problem with that one is that you can't prove it wrong - at least, if you do, you're dead so you'll get no satisfaction from it.

What makes them sure though that I'll turn to their God?;)

liamw

PDN wrote: »

The problem with that one is that you can't prove it wrong - at least, if you do, you're dead so you'll get no satisfaction from it.

OMG, you've pulled the old 'burden of proof' one there. Did you do that intentionally?

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

The problem with that one is that you can't prove it wrong - at least, if you do, you're dead so you'll get no satisfaction from it.

While I know that when you die your consciousness just ceases to exist because it's entirely contained in your brain which will soon decompose, sometimes I wish you could be aware just for a few seconds after death, just long enough for you to realise that's what about to happen so the believers can say to themselves....."aw crap"

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

While I know that when you die your consciousness just ceases to exist because it's entirely contained in your brain which will soon decompose, sometimes I wish you could be aware just for a few seconds after death, just long enough for you to realise that's what about to happen so the believers can say to themselves....."aw crap"

Instead, as the brain shut downs the consciousness hallucinates more and more..
They think they are right until their very last neuron flows and then nothing...so they know no better.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Bad arguments are bad arguments, whether they come from atheist, theist or agnostic.

As Dades points out the only thing some one has to worry about with this thread, or feel bad about, is if they use these arguments (which I'm sure you don't Jimi :pac:) Theists who do might learn something from having a scan through this thread.

And considering the vitriol that some of us face when discuss such issues with theists it is hardly surprising people want to blow off a little steam here.

If I went into the Christianity forum, and started a thread saying 'the most annoying arguements from atheists'. Then I proceeded to state rare arguements or misrepresented arguements etc that most atheists around here would not use, I'm pretty sure some of the atheist folk would give me more than a telling off. IMO, what you are embarking on here, is a juvenile back slapping exercise that roughly translates into 'Feckin theists'. Obviously, its your house, so you are more than entitled to, I just don't see anything positive in it.

There are some that take any opportunity to take pot shots at the enemy, and thats fine. I think some of you have more to offer than that though.

liamw

JimiTime wrote: »

If I went into the Christianity forum, and started a thread saying 'the most annoying arguements from atheists'.
.

I'm not sure how one can argue for non-belief in something, but please go ahead and start that thread

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Nah it works the other way though as the brain enters shut down mode the consciousness begins to hallucinate more:(

True, that's where NDE's come in. It's amazing that people trust their interpretations at times of such great trauma. I heard of an experiment to test if out of body experiences were actually happening. In an operating theatre they put a picture or something up near the ceiling and blocked by a ledge so you could only see it if you were actually floating above the table watching yuor body. No idea how it turned out though

JimiTime

liamw wrote: »

please go ahead and start that thread

I would not be moved to do such a thing. It would be fairly useless, as is this one IMO. i suppose my point is made, so I wont spoil the thread anymore.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

If I went into the Christianity forum, and started a thread saying 'the most annoying arguements from atheists'. Then I proceeded to state rare arguements or misrepresented arguements etc that most atheists around here would not use, I'm pretty sure some of the atheist folk would give me more than a telling off. IMO, what you are embarking on here, is a juvenile back slapping exercise that roughly translates into 'Feckin theists'. Obviously, its your house, so you are more than entitled to, I just don't see anything positive in it.

There are some that take any opportunity to take pot shots at the enemy, and thats fine. I think some of you have more to offer than that though.

You're more than welcome to start such a thread and we will be delighted to correct you if we feel you've misrepresented us

Where do you think we've misrepresented theists? We've already dealt with the relative rarity of the ontological argument. Anything else?