Ridiculous arguments for believing

Chief_Jack

I doubt I am the only one who has had a fundamentalist or met a preacher on the street who has tried to 'help' me by convincing me that I am wrong and there is a God.

The most ridiculous of these I have encountered was when a preacher guy said to me "Seeing as you don't believe in a God and believe there is no Hell for you to pay for your sins in this world what stops you from going on a huge killing spree seeing as you won't get punished in the next life for it?". My reply which crippled him, "You call me immoral for not having faith, yet the first thing you think of is if there's no God to punish you then you would go on a killing spree. I think that says a lot more about you than it does me".

That ended the conversation pretty abruptly I can tell you that!

frozenfrozen

Same as your story almost exactly, except I didn't say it in such a badass tone. I basically just said that I don't need a god to treat people properly. This man later went on to tell me that he tried to kill a police officer in england by stabbing him several times.

It's always the mad ones!

Chief_Jack

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Same as your story almost exactly, except I didn't say it in such a badass tone. I basically just said that I don't need a god to treat people properly. This man later went on to tell me that he tried to kill a police officer in england by stabbing him several times.

It's always the mad ones!

Hahaha my story may have been phrased more bad-ass as you say sir but yours is far more bizarre and funny.

Indeed, Religion often is littered with people who are unstable and need it as a crutch to keep them on a moral path. I just think its unfair for those same people to chastise the non-believers who follow their own moral code without the need for the crutch.

To clarify, I don't think all Religious people are like this but there is a fair share of them.

Pushtrak

Seeing as the moral argument has already been pointed out, I guess I'll go with the "Life has no meaning if you don't believe in a imaginary sky father figure with a plan that you will act out while having free will but the plan but the free will but..." and that "life as a non believer is empty" when really, I'd say emptiness, or at least lacking is a reasonable analysis at looking at the critical faculties of the believer.

MagicMarker

All arguments for believing are ridiculous.

Chief_Jack

MagicMarker wrote: »

All arguments for believing are ridiculous.

How about someone who was brainwashed from a young age to believe and is so warped from the experience that they find it impossible to let go of the belief. That's hardly ridiculous now is it, its ridiculous that it was allowed to happen but now that it has I wouldn't describe that persons reason for believing as 'ridiculous'.

Sarky

The recently posited "oh but god designed empirical evidence, so that means any old bullsh*t reason to believe is equally valid" argument is the daftest one I've heard since, well, ever.

MagicMarker

Chief_Jack wrote: »

How about someone who was brainwashed from a young age to believe and is so warped from the experience that they find it impossible to let go of the belief. That's hardly ridiculous now is it, its ridiculous that it was allowed to happen but now that it has I wouldn't describe that persons reason for believing as 'ridiculous'.

Your thread is entitled "Ridiculous arguments for believing", I've never heard a theist use an argument that wasn't ridiculous, how they've come to that conclusion is irrelevant when it comes to this thread.

The person you refer to in your OP, who had his own ridiculous argument, did you double check with him to make he wasn't "brainwashed from a young age" before starting this thread? Of course not, his argument is ridiculous regardless.

Pushtrak

MagicMarker wrote: »

Your thread is entitled "Ridiculous arguments for believing", I've never heard a theist use an argument that wasn't ridiculous, how they've come to that conclusion is irrelevant when it comes to this thread.

The person you refer to in your OP, who had his own ridiculous argument, did you double check with him to make he wasn't "brainwashed from a young age" before starting this thread? Of course not, his argument is ridiculous regardless.

That is true, and it reminds me of one I can now bring up as an example. Presuppositional apologetics. "When you presuppose god exists, then you believe god exists".

Edit: If you want to see the daftness of it, and don't mind giving something stupid a click, check this out.

robindch

My fundamentalist relative once explained her extreme religious belief thusly:

"I believe, because."

It takes a bit of practice to hear the italics.

SpaceRocket

Chief_Jack wrote: »

How about someone who was brainwashed from a young age to believe and is so warped from the experience that they find it impossible to let go of the belief. That's hardly ridiculous now is it, its ridiculous that it was allowed to happen but now that it has I wouldn't describe that persons reason for believing as 'ridiculous'.

I think you may have been referring to my comments here? In that case...

My reasons for believing I don't feel were necessarily ridiculous...
I was after all a toddler, a child, and a pre teen when I was a religious zealout.

What I lacked was responsible, rational thinking adults. My reasons for believing were because I had no other option, no other way of thinking was ever offered me during that period of my young life.

I was born into ignorance, and that is what is ridiculous. On top of all the tripe I was led to believe in.

Chief_Jack

Hmmmm, yeah I see what you mean. Fair point

krudler

"everything had to come from somewhere"

so, a wizard did it basically.

Pushtrak

krudler wrote: »

"everything had to come from somewhere"

so, a wizard did it basically.

Everything had to come from somewhere... Except the wizard.

joseph brand

Pushtrak wrote: »

Everything had to come from somewhere... Except the wizard.

'He' has always existed. /half smile and blank stare.

In response to the OP:

"I want to go to heaven, therefore God!".
I have some sympathy for people who think like this. Poor craters.

oshead

I know I've heard lots and lots of arguments, but can't remember most of it because it's such insane waffle.... Most, if not all of the ridiculous arguments for believing in a deity can be found at this link.... http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=333

But the real problem with this waffle is the way it permeates and dominates general society.

Galvasean

"You HAVE TO believe in SOMETHING" - usually with such an emphasis.

The ontological argument or 'Perfect Being' argument is also the biggest pile of nonsense I've ever heard, but is one people (usually philosophy students to be fair) frequently bring up.

RHarrow

I find a lot of theists fall back on Pascal's Wager fairly rapidly.

"What if you're wrong and face a God you didn't believe in?" is the usual. When countered with "What if YOU'RE wrong and face a God YOU didn't believe in, but instead mindlessly devoted your life to worshipping something that was not that God?" followed by "My God is the one true God etc etc".

As one poster said, there literally are no good arguments for believing and all fall at their knees when you point out the fact that their religious beliefs (theists) are generally down to the geographical location they were brought up in and what religion their parents were.

Daftendirekt

I think one of the worst is what I'm going to call the Matrix Fallacy. It amounts to this:

You can't say for sure that we aren't in a Matrix-type simulation/hallucination. Because we can't be sure that the world as we experience it exists objectively, any statement of fact is as valid as any other. Therefore, God exists.

I've never seen it put in so many words - it's generally dressed up with a lot of waffle about the nature of knowledge and talk about how we know what we think we know. But to quote the Internet:

what is this i don't even

Sarky

Oh, that one gives me rage.

Daftendirekt

Sarky wrote: »

The recently posited "oh but god designed empirical evidence, so that means any old bullsh*t reason to believe is equally valid" argument is the daftest one I've heard since, well, ever.

Heh, I'm reading that thread as we speak.

Galvasean

'Gaps in current scientific understanding... GAPS!!!!'

bnt

The ones that most annoy me are the "expediency" arguments. The ones that state that the truth of religious claims is beside the point, but that religion should still set the social agenda because "it's good for people and society".

Even if that were true, which I seriously doubt, it would still be highly patronising and insulting to the average person. It's saying that people are sheep - Psalm 23 notwithstanding - who need to be herded by clergy who "know what's good for them". It's saying that it's acceptable to lie to people to get them to "behave" - that "the end justifies the means" and "you can't handle the truth". :cool:

It's not just Christianity, either. Islam has all those inconsistently-applied tribal strictures, such as Burkas (because men are slaves to their hormones), and rituals to mark out the hours. Tibetan Buddhism is another: I wonder whether all those celebrities supporting the Dalai Lama fully understand what kind of elitist feudal theocratic state Tibet was under his predecessors?

Nervous Wreck

"I believe because I have faith."

GarIT

X, Y and Z prove that the bible is the true word of god. Where do you find evidence of X, Y and Z? God says it, in the bible.

That's the infinate circle, the bible proves god to be true and god proves the bible to be true.

pauldla

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

"I believe because I have faith."

And then they go on to say that you cannot challenge the 'mystery of faith'.

All together now, "OH YES I CAN"

fatmammycat

I dislike the dishonesty of some 'faithful'
Why do you believe what you do?
'I've seen things over the years that have proved to me the existence of my personal god.'
Such as?'
Either * crickets* or prefectly explainable not in the slighest bit supernatural event revealed.
Therefore god.

Ellis Dee

The "best" one I've heard (many times) is: "How can you say that? You were brought up right!":rolleyes::rolleyes:

I'd recommend something like this YouTube video to them, but they are far too thick for it to do them any good::D:D

krudler

RHarrow wrote: »

I find a lot of theists fall back on Pascal's Wager fairly rapidly.

"What if you're wrong and face a God you didn't believe in?" is the usual. When countered with "What if YOU'RE wrong and face a God YOU didn't believe in, but instead mindlessly devoted your life to worshipping something that was not that God?" followed by "My God is the one true God etc etc".

As one poster said, there literally are no good arguments for believing and all fall at their knees when you point out the fact that their religious beliefs (theists) are generally down to the geographical location they were brought up in and what religion their parents were.

in the words of Homer Simpson: "but Marge, what if we chose the wrong religion? every week we're just making god madder and madder!"

sbsquarepants

krudler wrote: »

"everything had to come from somewhere"

so, a wizard did it basically.

This is probably the one glaring piece of bolloxology which first prompted me down the road to atheism when i was 8 or 9.

Sister Anne: All this stuff can't just come from nowhere, someone or something had to make it. Didn't they?
(Sounds very believable to a young child - this was 5th or 6th class)
Me (very innocently mind!): I suppose so. Who made god then?
Sister Anne: Eh, he doesn't need to be made, he always existed.
Me: But how, doesn't everything have to be made?
Sister Anne: Everything except god, he does the making, he doesn't get made!
Me: I don't understand.
Sister Anne: You're not supposed too!

:mad:

fatmammycat

fatmammycat wrote: »

I dislike the dishonesty of some 'faithful'
Why do you believe what you do?
'I've seen things over the years that have proved to me the existence of my personal god.'
Such as?'
Either * crickets* or prefectly explainable not in the slighest bit supernatural event revealed.
Therefore god.

such as pretty flowers, that's what

"Look, pretty flowers! therefore god exists"

sbsquarepants

Galvasean wrote: »

"You HAVE TO believe in SOMETHING" - usually with such an emphasis.

The ontological argument or 'Perfect Being' argument is also the biggest pile of nonsense I've ever heard, but is one people (usually philosophy students to be fair) frequently bring up.

That is one outstandingly idiotic piece of "philosophy".
A perfect being must exist because if he didn't, he wouldn't be perfect? Words fail me!!

RHarrow wrote: »

I find a lot of theists fall back on Pascal's Wager fairly rapidly.
.

Another terrible piece of reasoning. Surely god, as in the real deal all knowing god, can tell the difference between a believer and a snivelling weasily fúcking bet hedger!

Penn

"I believe in God because by knowing him, he showed me the way"

(this and all other equally idiotic pseudo-philosophical comments which mean absolutely nothing and is just a roundabout way of saying "I believe because I believe")

MisterEpicurus

They're all as bad as each other in many ways;

Morality: "I believe in god because if I didn't, I'd have permission to murder that son of a bitch who robbed my iPhone"

Science: "I believe in god because I don't believe anything can come into existence from nothing...of course I'm not talking about who created this stuff! Don't confuse me!! Respect my beliefs!"

Death: "I believe in god because I don't like the idea of being eaten by worms and maggots 6ft underground when I die...thus I logically conclude an afterlife exists."

Fine-Tuning of Life: "I believe in god because life appears to be just right for life...but please don't bring up the millions of diseases, plagues, natural catastrophes, and the future heat death of our planet, that's for another generation!"

Ontological Argument: "I think therefore I am; I think therefore he is."

However the above are sarcastically phrased, they do reflect the utter stupidity and the logically deluded nature that underpins them.

Galvasean

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That is one outstandingly idiotic piece of "philosophy".
A perfect being must exist because if he didn't, he wouldn't be perfect? Words fail me!!

What is particularly flabbergasting about that one is that even when it was first pitched many perfectly God-believing monks rubbished it as nonsense. How it has hung on for so long is anyone's guess. Personally I would guess (see what I did there?) that many believers are so desperate for evidence, any evidence, that they will cling on to any notion that supports their position without so much as checking to see if it makes sense first.

fitz0

I was walking up O'Connell St today at around 4.30 or so and the fella who's usually on the Henry St corner was talking out his hole megaphone saying (an almost direct quote)

"You know the unique thing about Christianity, Christianity is unique because it has a saviour!"

mikhail

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Science: "I believe in god because I don't believe anything can come into existence from nothing...of course I'm not talking about who created this stuff! Don't confuse me!! Respect my beliefs!"
...
However the above are sarcastically phrased, they do reflect the utter stupidity and the logically inerrant nature that underpins them.

It's not clear to me that you know what inerrant means. Or have any notion of modern quantum physics. I'm rather more accustomed to hearing this flipped to the "Nothing comes from nothing, ergo God" line of 'thought'.

MisterEpicurus

mikhail wrote: »

quantum physics. I'm rather more accustomed to hearing this flipped to the "Nothing comes from nothing, ergo God" line of 'thought'.

Spot on with the meaning there, rushed it, thanks ;-)

As for the quantum, well I'm well aware of what current physics teaches but what relevance is that to my post.

Cruel Sun

A girl in my class said she didn't believe in God and challenged the teachers beliefs. She said something like "What proof is there that he exists?"

Teacher replies "Yeah but what proof is there that he doesn't exist?"

That has to be the single most irritating and stupid argument for believing in God.

By her logic I could have a pet unicorn under my bed. What proof is there that there isn't.

MisterEpicurus

Martin_94 wrote: »

A girl in my class said she didn't believe in God and challenged the teachers beliefs. She said something like "What proof is there that he exists?"

Teacher replies "Yeah but what proof is there that he doesn't exist?"

That has to be the single most irritating and stupid argument for believing in God.

By her logic I could have a pet unicorn under my bed. What proof is there that there isn't.

True - it is an extremely irritating response. Moreover, surely the default position would be atheism if what she says was really true? I mean, if you have no evidence for the existence and no evidence for the lack of its existence, then by what means can you determine it to be true. It's bizarre alright.

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Personally I would guess (see what I did there?) that many believers are so desperate for evidence, any evidence, that they will cling on to any notion that supports their position without so much as checking to see if it makes sense first.

Well, perhaps prophetically enough the dumb-dumbs are now hailing the discovery of the Higgs Boson as proof that God exists. Another stark reminder of just how deluded religious people can be.

robindch

Penn wrote: »

"I believe in God because by knowing him, he showed me the way"

That's a deepity.

qrrgprgua

Martin_94 wrote: »

A girl in my class said she didn't believe in God and challenged the teachers beliefs. She said something like "What proof is there that he exists?"

Teacher replies "Yeah but what proof is there that he doesn't exist?"

That has to be the single most irritating and stupid argument for believing in God.

By her logic I could have a pet unicorn under my bed. What proof is there that there isn't.

You brought the unicorn into the argument.

The teacher was right. What proof do you have that God does not exist?

There isn't an answer for everything.. That is not proof of God of course, but it also does not prove that he does not exist.

oldrnwisr

qrrgprgua wrote: »

You brought the unicorn into the argument.

The teacher was right. What proof do you have that God does not exist?

There isn't an answer for everything.. That is not proof of God of course, but it also does not prove that he does not exist.

I think Martin was just referring to where the burden of proof lies, namely with the theist but I'm sure you already know that.

qrrgprgua

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I think Martin was just referring to where the burden of proof lies, namely with the theist but I'm sure you already know that.

The burden of proof is with both sides. But I take your point.

Pushtrak

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The burden of proof is with both sides. But I take your point.

A claim is made. Something exists. To jump on board, one ought to be satisfied with the existence. And being satisfied, be able to explain to others the grounds on which the evidence may satisfy another. In other words, atheists reject the claim. So, what does an atheist have to prove?

mrac

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The burden of proof is with both sides. But I take your point.

If I were to tell you there are unicorns on Mars how in Odins name could you have any burden of proof to disprove that? Clearly the burden lies with me in its entirety. Same goes for any claim of a supernatural being.

joseph brand

Galvasean wrote: »

"You HAVE TO believe in SOMETHING" - usually with such an emphasis.

"You need a faith".

This was me aged 11 or so, reiterating what my parents had told me. Telling my friends, who gave me a puzzled look, then laughed in my very immature face.

For the next 20 years or so, this line would pop up, as their ammo to use against me. It sort of makes me cringe, but hey, I was an impressionable, happy-go-lucky scamp.

Sarky

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The burden of proof is with both sides. But I take your point.

Proof that you didn't take a load of drugs and murder a hooker in Mexico or gtfo.

I'll stop asking when you kids stop making stupid requests to prove a negative.

doctoremma

Sarky wrote: »

Proof that you didn't take a load of drugs and murder a hooker in Mexico or gtfo.

Can you imagine that in a court of law?

Sarky

doctoremma wrote: »

Can you imagine that in a court of law?

If it was a court of religious law, then yes.