Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

Galvasean

Morbert wrote: »

How would you present the God hypothesis to science?

That's part of the problem. Something as vague and poorly defined as the God concept is always going to struggle to get past the hypothesis stage.

Sam Vimes

Galvasean wrote: »

That's part of the problem. Something as vague and poorly defined as the God concept is always going to struggle to get past the hypothesis stage.

Some would argue that it's vague and poorly defined for precisely that reason. If you define your god in a falsifiable way then someone might just go ahead and prove it doesn't exist, like the first time someone climbed Mount Olympus and didn't find Zeus

Galvasean

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Some would argue that it's vague and poorly defined for precisely that reason. If you define your god in a falsifiable way then someone might just go ahead and prove it doesn't exist, like the first time someone climbed Mount Olympus and didn't find Zeus

Yeah, but Zeus didn't live on that particular Mount Olympus...
Or, if you like, since seeing a God in his true form makes mortals explode, he obviously cloaked himself to spare the climbers a messy end.

Sam Vimes

Galvasean wrote: »

Yeah, but Zeus didn't live on that particular Mount Olympus...
Or, if you like, since seeing a God in his true form makes mortals explode, he obviously cloaked himself to spare the climbers a messy end.

Where would believers be without ad hoc hypotheses.

Morbert

Galvasean wrote: »

That's part of the problem. Something as vague and poorly defined as the God concept is always going to struggle to get past the hypothesis stage.

My philosophy regarding the existence of things is essentially nihilism with some pragmatic empiricism. I don't think we can decide that anything actually exists, but basing tentative assumptions about the existence of things on evidence is the most effective philosophical framework we have. Science is an effective application of empiricism, as described by the philosophy of science. But science itself is not a philosophy, so anyone who wants to believe in God might be a bad empiricist, but that is very different to bad science.

So yes, God will never be formulated as a scientific hypothesis. But this does not mean we can scientifically say that God probably doesn't exist. That's the argument I dislike.

I don't say this to defend religion, by the way. I say it to defend science. Science is at its best when it's about sniffing around in the dirt and unearthing fascinating patterns of nature. It doesn't deserve to be dragged into philosophical discussions.

dvpower

Galvasean wrote: »

Or, if you like, since seeing a God in his true form makes mortals explode, he obviously cloaked himself to spare the climbers a messy end.

All praise to the merciful Lord Zeus.

ShooterSF

Morbert wrote: »

I don't say this to defend religion, by the way. I say it to defend science. Science is at its best when it's about sniffing around in the dirt and unearthing fascinating patterns of nature. It doesn't deserve to be dragged into philosophical discussions.

But I think it's fair to say that when it comes to gods, science concerns itself with ones that seemingly like to get that dirt on their hands and who seemingly create said patterns of nature...

Morbert

ShooterSF wrote: »

But I think it's fair to say that when it comes to gods, science concerns itself with ones that seemingly like to get that dirt on their hands and who seemingly create said patterns of nature...

Well yes, creationist assertions about evolution and the emergence of life and whatnot can certainly be tackled with science. Though there are many Christians who don't make such assertions.

The only clash between Christianity and science that I anticipate is in the near future, when psychology and human will becomes better understood in the context of biological systems and physical laws.

Naz_st

Morbert wrote: »

...I don't think we can decide that anything actually exists...

Descartes would be rolling in his grave at that one!

ShooterSF

Morbert wrote: »

Well yes, creationist assertions about evolution and the emergence of life and whatnot can certainly be tackled with science. Though there are many Christians who don't make such assertions.

The only clash between Christianity and science that I anticipate is in the near future, when psychology and human will becomes better understood in the context of biological systems and physical laws.

But all christians (I assume) believe god has had some involvement in our universe and therefore their god does come under scrutiny from science at some point be it by apparitions, miracles or even curing Aunt Betty's cancer etc.

Also and this covers all religions, god gets attributed to natural events science hasn't explained yet, "the god of gaps"

liamw

ShooterSF wrote: »

But all christians (I assume) believe god has had some involvement in our universe and therefore their god does come under scrutiny from science at some point be it by apparitions, miracles or even curing Aunt Betty's cancer etc.

Also and this covers all religions, god gets attributed to natural events science hasn't explained yet, "the god of gaps"

Religious people want to have their cake and eat it. One one hand, they enjoy saying that religion is outside science and that they are non-overlapping majisteria.

This is completely contradicted by the fact that the human species is 'special' for religious people. For this to happen, God had to intervene somewhere in evolutionary time to 'inject' a soul into humans. Whether this happened gradually (?!) or there was a time when a child was born with a soul whose parents didn't have one, baffles me...

eoin5

Morbert wrote: »

My philosophy regarding the existence of things is essentially nihilism with some pragmatic empiricism. I don't think we can decide that anything actually exists, but basing tentative assumptions about the existence of things on evidence is the most effective philosophical framework we have. Science is an effective application of empiricism, as described by the philosophy of science. But science itself is not a philosophy, so anyone who wants to believe in God might be a bad empiricist, but that is very different to bad science.

So yes, God will never be formulated as a scientific hypothesis. But this does not mean we can scientifically say that God probably doesn't exist. That's the argument I dislike.

I don't say this to defend religion, by the way. I say it to defend science. Science is at its best when it's about sniffing around in the dirt and unearthing fascinating patterns of nature. It doesn't deserve to be dragged into philosophical discussions.

I'm with you on science not working properly when examining gods. The one assumption of science is that the universe operates by a set of rules. If you take the standard personal creator type god he can contravene or change those rules willynilly. So the question of whether science's assumption is true is inversely related to the possibility of a god.

Sam Vimes

eoin5 wrote: »

I'm with you on science not working properly when examining gods. The one assumption of science is that the universe operates by a set of rules. If you take the standard personal creator type god he can contravene or change those rules willynilly. So the question of whether science's assumption is true is inversely related to the possibility of a god.

Theistic science:

Morbert

ShooterSF wrote: »

But all christians (I assume) believe god has had some involvement in our universe and therefore their god does come under scrutiny from science at some point be it by apparitions, miracles or even curing Aunt Betty's cancer etc.

Also and this covers all religions, god gets attributed to natural events science hasn't explained yet, "the god of gaps"

The god of the gaps, yes. Apparitions and flashy miracles, yes. Certain claims regarding prayer can be investigated too. But the existence of God, or the resurrection of Jesus, cannot be investigated with science.

Naz_st wrote:

Morbert wrote:

...I don't think we can decide that anything actually exists...

Descartes would be rolling in his grave at that one!

"I think" is an assumption on my part. I can't actually know whether or not "I think" is true.

Eoin5 wrote:

I'm with you on science not working properly when examining gods. The one assumption of science is that the universe operates by a set of rules. If you take the standard personal creator type god he can contravene or change those rules willynilly. So the question of whether science's assumption is true is inversely related to the possibility of a god.

Uniformitarianism is an assumption of science insofar as it's necessary to carry out scientific investigations. But it's an assumption that isn't scientific in the sense that it cannot be tested with the scientific method.

Naz_st

Morbert wrote: »

"I think" is an assumption on my part. I can't actually know whether or not "I think" is true.

It's axiomatic:

Axiom A1: (My) Sense-perception exists.

Proof: If I were to offer a disproof, I perceive the disproof

Axiom A2: I exist.

Proof: Any counter-proof I were to offer would contradict A1, since it presupposes consciousness by definition. But A1 is axiomatic. Therefore, consciousness, meaning I, exist.


Descartes just boiled it down into a nice soundbite!

Morbert

Axioms are statements that are assumed to be true without proof. They are not necessarily true. But anyway.

Axiom A1: (My) Sense-perception exists.

Proof: If I were to offer a disproof, I perceive the disproof

This is not actually a proof, as it relies on the assumption that a disproof is tendered, and that you perceive the disproof. To claim you perceive the disproof is to claim that your sense perception exists, which is what you are trying to prove.

Axiom A2: I exist.

Proof: Any counter-proof I were to offer would contradict A1, since it presupposes consciousness by definition. But A1 is axiomatic. Therefore, consciousness, meaning I, exist.

Axiom A2 would be more accurately called a theorem, since it relies on A1. Since A1 has no proof, and is not necessarily true, A2 is also not necessarily true.

Naz_st

Morbert wrote: »

Axioms are statements that are assumed to be true without proof. They are not necessarily true. But anyway.

An axiom is a proposition that is considered to be self-evident. This self-evidence can be for a number of reasons (depending on its field of use), one of them being that any proof to the contrary would establish the axiom as true, as in this case.

This is not actually a proof, as it relies on the assumption that a disproof is tendered, and that you perceive the disproof. To claim you perceive the disproof is to claim that your sense perception exists, which is what you are trying to prove.

Precisely, ergo establishing its axiomatic nature.

I have a feeling we're wandering OT here though!

ShooterSF

Naz_st wrote: »

I have a feeling we're wandering OT here though!

To be fair I think that happened pages ago :pac:

Morbert

Naz_st wrote: »

An axiom is a proposition that is considered to be self-evident. This self-evidence can be for a number of reasons (depending on its field of use), one of them being that any proof to the contrary would establish the axiom as true, as in this case.

The only difference between an axiom and a theorem is the latter follows from axioms (i.e. provable), while the former is supposed without proof. The phrase "self-evident" is a tribute to the philosopher's talent for obfuscation. Remember that a proof is a series of steps, defined by rules of logic, that stem from axioms and result in a theorem. Consider the following (trivial) proof.

Axiom 1:"I don't think"

Theorem 1:"I don't think"

Proof:"I don't think, therefore I don't think."

This is a perfectly consistent (though very trivial) proof that follows from an axiom. It does not establish your "self-evident" axiom because we have not assumed "I think/My sense perception exists" is true. Instead, it is assumed that "I think" is false.

So only contrary proofs within the system defined by the axiom/assumption "I think/My perception sense exists" lead to problems. If we don't make the assumption, then we don't have any problems with proofs that you don't exist.

[edit]-Deleted a portion of my response because I misread your second quote. The above is the relevant bit.

nozzferrahhtoo

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am just being precise on that specific issue, you are just being imprecise.

I have explained at length what my point is. If you want to discuss my points then Im here for you. If you want to be pedantic and moan about me not using the words you want while I do it, then I am not about to pander to that. It really does not matter which word we go with, I have explained my position and point several times in several different ways. It is clear what my point is. What part of it do you disagree with exactly?

Turtwig

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have explained at length what my point is. If you want to discuss my points then Im here for you. If you want to be pedantic and moan about me not using the words you want while I do it, then I am not about to pander to that. It really does not matter which word we go with, I have explained my position and point several times in several different ways. It is clear what my point is. What part of it do you disagree with exactly?

Just thought I'd provide a graphic illustration of the worst case of indoctrination.

nozzferrahhtoo

I have seen worse. There was a documentary about a 13 year old girl which I watched on the BBC who was home schooled. Basically all they appeared to teach her was the English language and anything from “the way of the master”.

If memory serves it is on you tube still and is called “Deborah 13: Servant of God” of some such. Look it up and try not to come away as depressed as I did. Especially at the point where she breaks down crying saying what a disgusting little sinner she is and how she will never live up to what Jesus wants of her.

Naz_st

Morbert wrote: »

The only difference between an axiom and a theorem is the latter follows from axioms (i.e. provable), while the former is supposed without proof. The phrase "self-evident" is a tribute to the philosopher's talent for obfuscation. Remember that a proof is a series of steps, defined by rules of logic, that stem from axioms and result in a theorem. Consider the following (trivial) proof.

Axiom 1:"I don't think"

Theorem 1:"I don't think"

Proof:"I don't think, therefore I don't think."

This is a perfectly consistent (though very trivial) proof that follows from an axiom. It does not establish your "self-evident" axiom because we have not assumed "I think/My sense perception exists" is true. Instead, it is assumed that "I think" is false.

So only contrary proofs within the system defined by the axiom/assumption "I think/My perception sense exists" lead to problems. If we don't make the assumption, then we don't have any problems with proofs that you don't exist.

As you point out, an axiom can be something that is simply assumed as a necessary step in a subjective but internally consistent logical framework.

However, a statement may also be axiomatic because in order to prove its falsehood, it would require you to accept its truth.

For example, since you mentioned the rules of logic above, take Identity and Non-contradiction:

Identity: A ≡ A ("that which is, is")

Non-Contradiction: not(p ^ not-p) ("That which is cannot both be and not-be")

Now, any proof to the contrary of these would have to assume their truth as part of the proof (all proofs presuppose these laws in their truth-evaluation since all proofs reach a true or false conclusion based on a truth-table evaluation).

I'm merely suggesting that "(my) sense perception exists" is similarly axiomatic. I mean really, regardless of axioms, just try to prove you don't exist to yourself for example!

Morbert

Naz_st wrote: »

As you point out, an axiom can be something that is simply assumed as a necessary step in a subjective but internally consistent logical framework.

However, a statement may also be axiomatic because in order to prove its falsehood, it would require you to accept its truth.

For example, since you mentioned the rules of logic above, take Identity and Non-contradiction:

Identity: A ≡ A ("that which is, is")

Non-Contradiction: not(p ^ not-p) ("That which is cannot both be and not-be")

Now, any proof to the contrary of these would have to assume their truth as part of the proof (all proofs presuppose these laws in their truth-evaluation since all proofs reach a true or false conclusion based on a truth-table evaluation).

Identity and Non-Contradiction hold under any consistent system of axioms (in sentential logic anyway). Non-contradiction, for example, follows directly from the Negation Elimination inference rule. The same, however, cannot be said for "My sense perception exists". "My sense perceptions do not exist" is a perfectly consistent assumption.

I'm merely suggesting that "(my) sense perception exists" is similarly axiomatic. I mean really, regardless of axioms, just try to prove you don't exist to yourself for example!

It's important to make a distinction between doubting your existence, and not assuming you exist. Descartes showed that you cannot doubt your own existence, as doubting implicitly assumes thinking. But this says nothing about simply not assuming sense perception exists. If that assumption is not made, then "I exist" cannot be proven or disproven. Hence, nihilism.

Naz_st

Morbert wrote: »

It's important to make a distinction between doubting your existence, and not assuming you exist. Descartes showed that you cannot doubt your own existence, as doubting implicitly assumes thinking. But this says nothing about simply not assuming sense perception exists. If that assumption is not made, then "I exist" cannot be proven or disproven. Hence, nihilism.

It's an extreme form of nihilism I haven't encountered before, and one it seems hard to engage with from a logical perspective. You seem to be saying: one can't doubt one's own existence but neither can one assume it?

One's own existence is one of the few epistemological tautologies there is, how can one argue or accept or understand anything without first accepting this?

"My sense perceptions do not exist" is a perfectly consistent assumption.

Then how do you perceive the assumption?

Morbert

Naz_st wrote: »

It's an extreme form of nihilism I haven't encountered before, and one it seems hard to engage with from a logical perspective. You seem to be saying: one can't doubt one's own existence but neither can one assume it?

We can certainly assume it. Everyone (including myself) effectively assumes they exist. We don't ask for proof, and simply take it as given. Nihilism is not the claim that nothing exists. Instead, it's the claim that it's not necessarily true that something exists. We might very well exist (which is what experience suggests) but we can't show that it is definitely true. This kind of metaphysical nihilism is the most genuine philosophy out there, and really highlights the limitations of our systems of logic. Other philosophies, like solipsism just beat around the bush in a dance of self-preservation.

One's own existence is one of the few epistemological tautologies there is, how can one argue or accept or understand anything without first accepting this?

Then how do you perceive the assumption?

This implicitly assumes I am perceiving. For all intents and purposes, I simply assume I exist. Nihilism, while honest, has little going for it in terms of efficacy, which is why I described myself as a pragmatic empiricist.

Naz_st

Morbert wrote: »

Instead, it's the claim that it's not necessarily true that something exists.

I remember reading something a while ago on that point, along the lines of "there can't exist a universe where no objects exist, as that universe itself would be an object that exists", but I can't think where I read it (probably a good while ago too).

Interesting discussion anyway, thanks for that (though we did manage to shamelessly usurp the thread!).

eoin5

Naz_st wrote: »

Interesting discussion anyway, thanks for that (though we did manage to shamelessly usurp the thread!).

Well I've enjoyed reading the discussion, its all good

Handsome Bob

Hmmmmmmmm.........

1. That only the stupid are religious. Aside from the fact that the claim is inherently wrong, I never really understood the point of showcasing intellectual snobbery in a debate. You're pretty much guaranteeing from the beginning that your opponent is not going to listen to you.
2. Juvenile arguments such as "all priests are child abusers" or "every religious person is a creationist".
3. That religious moderates allow extremists to be extremists.
4. Religion is the cause of all the suffering in the world. Such a cop out.
5. When atheists refuse to acknowledge the positive role religion plays in someone's life with bereavement being a typical example. If they do acknowledge it, they do it in a patronising manner. Something along the lines of "lulz I'm better than these people because I'm strong enough mentally to handle bereavement without believing in the flying spaghetti monster."

I'm sure there are more beefs, expect regular updates. :P

philologos

liamw wrote: »

This is completely contradicted by the fact that the human species is 'special' for religious people. For this to happen, God had to intervene somewhere in evolutionary time to 'inject' a soul into humans. Whether this happened gradually (?!) or there was a time when a child was born with a soul whose parents didn't have one, baffles me...

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