Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

farna_boy

After reading the "most annoying theist arguments" thread, and finding that I agreed with a lot of it as a religious person, it got me thinking are there any atheist arguments that you have heard other atheists using that really bug you?

As a religious person, I tend to shy away from the usual atheist/religious debate since it is full of totally ignorant people on both sides from "It's in the Bible, it has to be true" (and the associated circle) to "All Catholics/Christians are atheists, since they do not believe in god x" or another favourite "The pope is infalliable in ALL things".

Are there any arguments presented by atheists that make you cringe?

P.S. Found this list recently that I found interesting that may help you in future debates.

Sam Vimes

To pick one at random from your link:

3
Priestly Celibacy

Misconception: Catholic Priests can’t get married

This has appeared on a previous list, but it is well worth including it here as well. In order to clear this one up, we need to first understand the nature of the Catholic Church. Within the universal Church there are sections (also called churches but not in the sense that they are separate) – the most common one is, of course, the Roman (or Latin) Catholic Church. Then there is the Eastern Catholic Church (not to be confused with the Orthodox which is a different religion). Both of these churches fall under the jurisdiction of the Pope and all believe the same doctrines. There are a lot of differences between the two groups but these are all in matters of style of worship and certain rules. In the Eastern Church, priests are allowed to be married – but a married priest can’t become a Bishop.

It also happens that occasionally in the Latin Church, pastors who convert from other religions such as the Church of England are allowed to become priests even though they are married, so married priests can be found in all parts of the Roman Catholic Church. Pictured above is a Greek Catholic priest and his wife. Don’t believe me? Here is proof. And here is more proof.

The fact that there are some exceptions to the rule does not mean the rule does not exist. The fact remains that Catholic Priests can’t get married

Dades

I cringe when somebody starts down the road of declaring that atheists are smarter than believers, using (for example) the percentage of non-believers in the scientific community as evidence.

AFAIC, there's geniuses and morons on both sides of the fence, end of story.

Doctor DooM

Dades wrote: »

I cringe when somebody starts down the road of declaring that atheists are smarter than believers, using (for example) the percentage of non-believers in the scientific community as evidence.

AFAIC, there's geniuses and morons on both sides of fence, end of story.

I was just about to say this. It really enforces the stereotypical-know-it-all-college-student atheist stereotype.

Goduznt Xzst

I cringe whenever I see Atheists begin to argue the meaning of scripture with Christians. It's such a pointless endeavor and I've never seen any good come of it. What they are effectively trying to accomplish is convincing the individual that their understanding as a mortal human is more correct than the one they have received through holy spirit from God himself.

If it was possible to effectively explain the "true" meaning (by true I clearly mean the Atheists subjective opinion) of the Bible to a Christian then their wouldn't be so many possible and still active schisms of Christianity each with their own arbitrary hermeneutics for understanding the Bible to fit their own belief systems.

Sam Vimes

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I cringe whenever I see Atheists begin to argue the meaning of scripture with Christians. It's such a pointless endeavor and I've never seen any good come of it. What they are effectively trying to accomplish is convincing the individual that their understanding as a mortal human is more correct than the one they have received through holy spirit from God himself.

If it was possible to effectively explain the "true" meaning (by true I clearly mean the Atheists subjective opinion) of the Bible to a Christian then their wouldn't be so many possible and still active schisms of Christianity each with their own arbitrary hermeneutics for understanding the Bible to fit their own belief systems.

It really is a pointless endeavour tbh. If a believer has, say, read the bit about beating your slaves and holding their family to ransom or the bits where god kills lots and lots of people for no apparent reason and has decided he's somehow ok with it, no amount of logic is going to untwist that particular rationalisation. You can make smoe headway with people who've never read it but then those aren't the people who'd generally get into such debates

Goduznt Xzst

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I was just about to say this. It really enforces the stereotypical-know-it-all-college-student atheist stereotype.

Quickly, give me your first impression, someone walks up to you and says they are setting up a camcorder to record the gnomes coming alive in their garden at night. How intelligent do you imagine this person is?

I'm not saying it's true, intelligent people are religious, but it's natural to quickly come to this conclusion when faced with individuals who claim belief in the fantastical. I'm sure there where some Mensans at Knock staring at the Sun hoping to see Mary. Intelligence is really only a vehicle for how quickly you can digest information. If you don't digest the right information, all the intelligence in the world won't help you.

cavedave

Goduznt Xzst
Quickly, give me your first impression, someone walks up to you and says they are setting up a camcorder to record the gnomes coming alive in their garden at night. How intelligent do you imagine this person is?

Isnt it weird that the cleverest people on earth are trying to record a for what could be imaginary particle spinning round a tube in Switzerland? In a few hundred years time we could regard them the way we look at alchemists now. Not that it isnt incredibly cool that they are trying this.

Tim Robbins

farna_boy wrote: »

Are there any arguments presented by atheists that make you cringe?

Yes there are several.

1. Any of the arguments that just think all religious people are stupid are cringe inducing. Especially when 5 minutes later the atheist comes out with some wacky argument such as Vote No to Lisbon because they don't want a super state or because they can think for themselves.
2. Any argument where it's obvious the atheist hasn't a clue about any other religion besides the one they were indoctrinated with and thinks all religion is
the exact same as that is pretty bad. Usually this means equating not just all of Christianity but every religion as if it's no different from Catholicism.
3. The one where religion is blamed for every single world problem, including every single war.

farna_boy

I must admit one of the most frustrating arguments that I find some atheists use is that all Christians are Creationists. It is simply not true. For example, the Catholic Church has said in the past that it accepts scientific evidence of evolution, but it says that evolution was started by God.

From an atheist point of view I can see that this is still not ideal, it is a lot better than trying to debate with someone who thinks the world is only 6000 years old and that science and religion contradict each other i.e. "its only a theory" (ala creationists).

In fact, before I had read the article in my original post, I had not realised that it was a Catholic priest who first suggested what is now known as the big bang theory.

This brings me to another favourite of “If you are religious, you can not be a scientist”.

talkingdog

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I cringe whenever I see Atheists begin to argue the meaning of scripture with Christians. It's such a pointless endeavor

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.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It really is a pointless endeavour tbh. If a believer has, say, read the bit about beating your slaves and holding their family to ransom or the bits where god kills lots and lots of people for no apparent reason and has decided he's somehow ok with it, no amount of logic is going to untwist that particular rationalisation. You can make smoe headway with people who've never read it but then those aren't the people who'd generally get into such debates

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.

philologos

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.

1. How do we know the Bible is a work of fiction?
2. If the Bible offers the authoritative source of Christian belief, what use would it be to discuss Christianity without reference to the Bible?

talkingdog wrote: »

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.

3. Glad to be mentioned , but I have another question for you. Is it that we are making the Bible fit into a particular issue, or does the Bible actually fit into that issue of its own accord irrespective?

Dades

Jumping in here...

This thread is not going to be derailed by a discussion on the validity of the bible. What we have here is a good therapeutical opportunity.

talkingdog - I'm looking at you specifically, but anyone going OT is going to be dealt with.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

1. How do we know the Bible is a work of fiction?

Perhaps know is too strong a word. I simply give it roughly the same weight that you give all the other thousands of holy books.

Jakkass wrote: »

2. If the Bible offers the authoritative source of Christian belief, what use would it be to discuss Christianity without reference to the Bible?

His point is this all too common phenomenon:

An argument that's only valid if you accept the bible as truth is a waste of time against someone who doesn't

Jakkass wrote: »

3. Glad to be mentioned , but I have another question for you. Is it that we are making the Bible fit into a particular issue, or does the Bible actually fit into that issue of its own accord irrespective?

The first one

Dades

^^ Last post on the issue right there. ^^

Sam Vimes I know we overlapped.

Sam Vimes

Dades wrote: »

^^ Last post on the issue right there. ^^

Sam Vimes I know we overlapped.

Now I get to make my point and no one can respond.

/evil laugh :pac:

faceman

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes there are several.

1. Any of the arguments that just think all religious people are stupid are cringe inducing. Especially when 5 minutes later the atheist comes out with some wacky argument such as Vote No to Lisbon because they don't want a super state or because they can think for themselves.
2. Any argument where it's obvious the atheist hasn't a clue about any other religion besides the one they were indoctrinated with and thinks all religion is
the exact same as that is pretty bad. Usually this means equating not just all of Christianity but every religion as if it's no different from Catholicism.
3. The one where religion is blamed for every single world problem, including every single war.

Great post. There was an atheist interviewed on the radio last night and he failed on both point 2 and 3. The interviewer hung him by the ghoulies on point 3.

nozzferrahhtoo

There is one that springs to mind because I used to make it myself and I cringe now looking back. It took me a lot of time, debates, research and experience to stop using it.

It is the phrase „Faith is belief without evidence”.

It is not entirely accurate and misrepresents the theist enough to close down discourse which is never good. When someone is sure they have lots of evidence and you tell them they literally have none, what else can happen but them stopping listening to you? The second you start talking past someone you have failed.

I have reassessed this many times and now I think that faith to me means “Assuming to be true that which you are trying to show is true”.

When you do this you find evidence everywhere. You will literally have evidence coming out of your ears whether you believe in a god, that the number 23 controls everything, or whatever.

If you make the assumption first, and fit the evidence later, it is very hard NOT to have evidence for your proposition. It would be a true miracle if you did not.

Even the Bible knows this to be true and it says “Seek and you shall find”. Of course you will! How could you not?

If I could press a button and make one change in my fellow atheists rhetoric therefore it would be this, and my thumb would be raw from stabbing that button.

Sam Vimes

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When you do this you find evidence everywhere. You will literally have evidence coming out of your ears whether you believe in a god, that the number 23 controls everything, or whatever.

If you make the assumption first, and fit the evidence later, it is very hard NOT to have evidence for your proposition. It would be a true miracle if you did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

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

DOC09UNAM

im an atheist, i have no problem believing whatever they want as they dont try force their beliefs on me.

also it annoys me how atheist is spelled.

i before e except after c. why not here.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yes Jakass, it is applicable to everyone, on all subjects, everywhere. We should entertain all possibilities. However we should not assume that because we can think of a possibility that it is therefore 50:50 either. Unless there is SOME evidence for such an entity the chances of it existing are not 50:50 but 1 in X where X is the number of things possibly imaginable to be true anywhere ever by anyone and all the things they have not thought of or may never think of.

This is, obviously, a large large number. Unless evidence for a deity is provided therefore it is not that we should not “entertain the possibility” but that we should “dismiss the possibility” until such time as some evidence comes in on which to grant it credence.

This is not, as it may sound at first, a bit thing to ask as it is in fact what we do in most other realms of discourse every day.

The problem is that such a position is often misconstrued as being willing to “entertain the possibility” at all. I “entertain the possibility” of a god in the same way as I do about santa, fairies, alien abductions and a still living elvis. They are all possible, but until such time as there is a reason to grant them any credence I merely proceed in life without the assumption.

Dades

Thread title typo fixed.

PDN

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

im an atheist, i have no problem believing whatever they want as they dont try force their beliefs on me.

also it annoys me how atheist is spelled.

i before e except after c. why not here.

Because they're better educated here. It's athe-ist same as Commun-ist, or Stalin-ist.

Oops! See what I just did there?

DOC09UNAM

PDN wrote: »

Because they're better educated here. It's athe-ist same as Commun-ist, or Stalin-ist.

Oops! See what I just did there?

I wasnt saying anyone was wrong here, it was just weird, fair nuff for the explanation.

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Oops! See what I just did there?

Soph-ist-ry?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

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

Yes it's applicable to everyone. And the day you show evidence that's stronger than the stories in one of thousands of old books and things like a suggestion that there might once have been a city called Sodom, I might even think that I'm guilty of it

pH

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes there are several.

1. Any of the arguments that just think all religious people are stupid are cringe inducing. Especially when 5 minutes later the atheist comes out with some wacky argument such as Vote No to Lisbon because they don't want a super state or because they can think for themselves.

Oh dear, this from you Tim?

The argument that "all religious people are stupid" is in no way affected by the stupidity or otherwise of non-religious people, you have made an elementary logic error here mate, you've confused the two statements "all religious people are stupid" and "all stupid people are religious", you stated the first one, then presented evidence against the second.

I could go an and try and explain why the colours of pigeons is irrelevant to the statement "All swans are white", but this would probably be labouring the point.

Tim Robbins

pH wrote: »

The argument that "all religious people are stupid" is in no way affected by the stupidity or otherwise of non-religious people...

Well if they said: all religious people are stupid and by the way so are my, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

However, usally "they are stupid" has an implicit "I'm more intelligent than them" in it. Ironically, they are just as deluded as they people they are giving out about.

Tim Robbins

faceman wrote: »

Great post. There was an atheist interviewed on the radio last night and he failed on both point 2 and 3. The interviewer hung him by the ghoulies on point 3.

Indeed, Dicky Dawkins blames 3,000 killings (or so) in Northern Ireland on Religion in 'The God Delusion'. He doesn't mention things like social inequality, nationalism, bad politics, bad leadership.

In fact, he even omits evidence which refutes his arguments: such as the fact that Catholics and Protestants don't kill each other in Dublin or Liverpool or any of the several American states which has a large proportion of the two. Or that the Irish Rugby team has also been supported by thousands of Protestants and Catholics and there's never been a sniff of a problem.

Another argument I hate from atheists is:

4. Indoctrinating your children is a form of child abuse. Also, from Dicky.

Turtwig

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

im an atheist, i have no problem believing whatever they want as they dont try force their beliefs on me.

also it annoys me how atheist is spelled.

i before e except after c. why not here.

Because us and the theists tend to rely heavily on science.:)

I hate when religious arguments resort to using science to proof/disprove God - utterly pointless.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Because we tend to rely heavily on science.:)

Atheists claim to rely heavily on science. Science itself is agnostic on the issue of whether or not God exists. That's always been my problem with atheists claiming this.

Malty_T wrote: »

I hate when religious arguments resort to using science to proof/disprove God - utterly pointless.

Agreed with the caveat above.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheists claim to rely heavily on science. Science itself is agnostic on the issue of whether or not God exists. That's always been my problem with atheists/theists claiming this.

That's my problem too.

Too many zealots (atheist and theist) try to use science as a validation for their beliefs or lack of it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

4. Indoctrinating your children is a form of child abuse. Also, from Dicky.

This is one of his more misrepresented arguments and I would be with you in disagreeing with it if it was exactly as you present it above. However it is not indoctrination that this part of his book was aimed at.

What he actually says is that labeling the children is akin to child abuse. Although I think the phrase "child abuse" is pointlessly over the top, the argument underneath it is sound and goes like this:

You would, I hope, cringe before saying something like "my 5 year old son is a republican" or "my 7 year old daughter is a feminist" and so on. For the same reason one should cringe before saying "my 5 year old son is a Muslim". Children of certain ages are not old enough to have political or religious affiliations and labeling them as having one is to project what you are on to them, which is not a nice thing to do to anyone.

redfacedbear

'I don't believe in god 'cause religion class is soooo boring and I don't want to do it anymore'

doctoremma

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Another argument I hate from atheists is:

4. Indoctrinating your children is a form of child abuse. Also, from Dicky.

I wouldn't dismiss this so lightly. I have read horror stories of people's struggle to leave a religion, of how they were treated by parents, by friends. All because they were indoctrinated without being asked.

Tim Robbins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Although I think the phrase "child abuse" is pointlessly over the top, the argument underneath it is sound and goes like this:

He's using a rherotical trick / rabbel rousing technique by using the word "abuse" as it has emotive connotations in the venacular and in the literal.

Plenty of people label their kids in all sorts of ways. I bought my two nephews rugby jerseys for their birthdays and I'll be doing the same at Christmas.

This is the specific intent of brainwashing them to like sport and rugby and hopefully be good at it.

Are my "abusing" them?

ShooterSF

redfacedbear wrote: »

'I don't believe in god 'cause religion class is soooo boring and I don't want to do it anymore'

Well if you can disregard god to the trash pile of beliefs because you're bored of him you probably don't REALLY believe anyways....

Tim Robbins

doctoremma wrote: »

I wouldn't dismiss this so lightly. I have read horror stories of people's struggle to leave a religion, of how they were treated by parents, by friends. All because they were indoctrinated without being asked.

Well they would be in the minority and probably greatly out number by the children who find in comforting thinking their parents / grandparent are going to heaven when they die.

You are dumbing it down and just looking at the one side.

Typical Dicky Dawkins style.

ShooterSF

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well they would be in the minority and probably greatly out number by the children who find in comforting thinking their parents / grandparent are going to heaven when they die.

You are dumbing it down and just looking at the one side.

Typical Dicky Dawkins style.

Surely indoctrinating a child so he is comforted regardless of whether you know what your teaching him is right or wrong is dumbing it down?

Tim Robbins

ShooterSF wrote: »

Surely indoctrinating a child so he is comforted regardless of whether you know what your teaching him is right or wrong is dumbing it down?

No, because you can make plausable arguments that it alleviates pain and heart braking torture even if you are wrong.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Science itself is agnostic on the issue of whether or not God exists. That's always been my problem with atheists claiming this.

Which atheists have claimed this? I certainly don't recall any, though I do see plenty of religious people claiming that lots of atheists say this.

Revelation-based religions such as christianity fail not because there's no evidence to support them one way or the other, but primarily because of their many epistemological and logical problems.

ShooterSF

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No, because you can make plausable arguments that it alleviates pain and heart braking torture even if you are wrong.

I really don't want to go off topic as I'm enjoying this thread.
I don't disagree with what you said but did you answer what i asked? Is comfort at the cost of (investigating) truth dumbing things down?

If a kids pet dies and I tell him he went to live on a farm far away it's dumbing things down to comfort him.

Morbert

The claim that the question of God can be answered scientifically (Though there are Christians as well as atheists who use this argument.)

Tim Robbins

ShooterSF wrote: »

Is comfort at the cost of (investigating) truth dumbing things down?

Well it depends what you mean by "things?"

Does "things" include mental health / emotions of a human? Well then the answer would be no.

ShooterSF

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well it depends what you mean by "things?"

Does "things" include mental health / emotions of a human? Well then the answer would be no.

No I mean the child's intelligence i.e dumbing down...

nozzferrahhtoo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Are my "abusing" them?

Did anyone say you were?

Tim Robbins

ShooterSF wrote: »

No I mean the child's intelligence i.e dumbing down...

It would be a very hard argument to make that you were dumbing down a child's intelligence by indoctrinating them.

Tim Robbins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Did anyone say you were?

Dawkins argument is that indoctrination is a form of abuse. If you looks at other forms of indoctrination, it would shows the problems with this argument and refutts Dawkins' argument unless you are logically differentiate why some forms of indoctrination are abusive and others aren't or unless you consistently argue all forms of indoctrination are abusive.

nozzferrahhtoo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Dawkins argument is that indoctrination is a form of abuse.

Did not read my post at all did you? This is not his argument. I have read the book. I told you what his argument was. It was against labeling, not indoctrination. I also said I wholly agree the term abuse was effective but unnecessarily over the top.

Tim Robbins

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have read the book.

I have also read it.

I also said I wholly agree the term abuse was effective but unnecessarily over the top.

Well I am now confused because it sounds like you "wholly" agree with me.

My argument centered on the word "abuse" specifically in the context he uses it which is "child abuse".

I don't have the book beside me and I can't recall whether he was referring to indoctrination, labelling or both. But it doesn't change argument. Labelling neccessitates indoctrination, indoctrination neccessitates labelling. So you are getting down to semantics really that don't really change my argument.