Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ridiculous arguments for believing

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #33
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,361 ✭✭✭✭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")


  • Options
    #34
    MisterEpicurus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    fitz0
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,753 ✭✭✭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!"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    mikhail
    Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭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'.


  • Options
    #38
    MisterEpicurus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭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. :confused:


  • Options
    #39
    Cruel Sun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,323 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    MisterEpicurus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 588 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Penn wrote: »
    "I believe in God because by knowing him, he showed me the way"
    That's a deepity.


  • Options
    #43
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #44
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #45
    qrrgprgua
    Registered Users Posts: 786 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #47
    mrac
    Registered Users Posts: 130 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Galvasean wrote: »
    "You HAVE TO believe in SOMETHING" - usually with such an emphasis.

    "You need a faith". :o

    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.


  • Options
    #49
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    doctoremma
    Registered Users Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #51
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Can you imagine that in a court of law?

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Chief_Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭Chief_Jack


    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.

    And it is because of that stupid argument that we have The Flying Spaghetti Monster


  • Options
    #53
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,968 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    Here's another "expediency" argument I saw on FSTDT today:
    By the way, atheists earnestly insist: no one has been killed "in the name of atheism". True enough. Atheism doesn't ask anyone to do anything. However atheism removes all barriers which would prevent murder; from that point, raw human nature takes over. This is similar to arguing that blowing up a dam would not be murder. The dam breaking does no harm. It's all that water behind the dam which is killing thousands of people and the bomber had nothing to do with that! Of course, such a ridiculous argument would not hold water in any courtroom.

    jewish philosopher, Torah Philosophy
    In other words: religion doesn't have to be true, as long as it holds back the immense volume of "raw human nature" impulses towards murder and iniquity. It doesn't even have to be alive, or intelligent, or reasonable: it just has to be there in its assigned place, like so much reinforced concrete. :pac:

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #54
    Barr125
    Registered Users Posts: 146 ✭✭Barr125


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    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.

    What confuses me the most about that link is that if you exit it enough, it brings you to the Disney site...........


  • Options
    #55
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I wonder do religious people that say belief keeps them from killing people left right and center actually believe it? If someone were to (hypothetically of course) 100% disprove their religion would they really turn around and start murdering at any given opportunity?
    And what of those with religious belief who murder anyway?


  • Options
    #56
    Chief_Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭Chief_Jack


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I wonder do religious people that say belief keeps them from killing people left right and center actually believe it? If someone were to (hypothetically of course) 100% disprove their religion would they really turn around and start murdering at any given opportunity?
    And what of those with religious belief who murder anyway?

    I am sure if it was ever 100% proved that there was no God the world would change, so many people would be lost and not know what to do with there lives. Probably would cause some unstable ones to kill people unfortunately.

    Those who murder and have religious belief are hard to diagnose. I mean it's so contradictory but I guess partially it depends on how religious the person is and then why they murdered someone and so on.


  • Options
    #57
    Icepick
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭Icepick


    all of them


  • Options
    #58
    lawnmower_man
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 51 ✭✭lawnmower_man


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I wonder do religious people that say belief keeps them from killing people left right and center actually believe it? If someone were to (hypothetically of course) 100% disprove their religion would they really turn around and start murdering at any given opportunity?
    And what of those with religious belief who murder anyway?

    if it keeps some people from killing , then surely religon has some possitive effects ?

    a lot of people the world over live lives of tremendous suffering and many of them encounter such rank injustice , they have good reason to kill


  • Options
    #59
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,968 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    lawnmower_man wrote: »
    if it keeps some people from killing , then surely religon has some possitive effects ?

    a lot of people the world over live lives of tremendous suffering and many of them encounter such rank injustice , they have good reason to kill
    You sort-of answered your own question there. Is religion really the only way to stop some people from killing? Or, as you imply, is it possible to identify the reasons why they kill - and then do something about the reasons? Prevention is always better than cure. Particularly when the cure can be as bad as the disease.

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #60
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    Chief_Jack wrote: »
    I am sure if it was ever 100% proved that there was no God the world would change, so many people would be lost and not know what to do with there lives. Probably would cause some unstable ones to kill people unfortunately.

    Those who murder and have religious belief are hard to diagnose. I mean it's so contradictory but I guess partially it depends on how religious the person is and then why they murdered someone and so on.

    Don't see religion and murder as contradictory at all. Most of the major religions are obssessed with death and murder.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    laugh
    Registered Users Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭laugh


    bnt wrote: »
    Here's another "expediency" argument I saw on FSTDT today:

    In other words: religion doesn't have to be true, as long as it holds back the immense volume of "raw human nature" impulses towards murder and iniquity. It doesn't even have to be alive, or intelligent, or reasonable: it just has to be there in its assigned place, like so much reinforced concrete. :pac:

    We should teach philosophy instead of religion right through the school system?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement