Most annoying theist lines of argument?

Daftendirekt · 06-11-2009 10:57PM

Galvasean wrote: »

Anyone mentioned Pascal's wager? Not many theists seem to use it, but a lot of agnostics I have met do.

Makes sense, considering dawkins is basically a 'sexed up' Emma Watson

Holy hell! :eek:

It's uncanny.

Daftendirekt · 07-11-2009 12:40AM

PDN wrote: »

I agree that Hitler's personal atheism (or not) is irrelevant. He was such an opportunistic bastard that you can't really trust any of his contradictory statements more than any other.

However, the argument about atheism and Nazism goes a bit deeper than Hitler's own beliefs. There is a common perception, shared by many eminent historians, that the philosophy of Nietzsche paved the way for Nazism.

You're right in one way, and wrong in another. My understanding is that Hitler and the Nazi's took some of Nietzsche's ideas about the Ubermensch, the will to power, etc. and applied them to their own twisted ideas about a 'master race'.

It's not really fair on poor old Nietzsche to say he paved the way for Nazism. It was a blatant misinterpretation of his views by Hitler, and one that even a superficial of study of Nietzsche's work would show to be antithetical to what his philosophy actually espouses.

stevejazzx · 07-11-2009 01:07AM

pdn wrote:

However, the argument about atheism and Nazism goes a bit deeper than Hitler's own beliefs. There is a common perception, shared by many eminent historians, that the philosophy of Nietzsche paved the way for Nazism.

Oh dear. What do you mean to say PDN? Is this your view?
The way you've phrased it makes it appear you're not sure what you're on about. Yes it appears Hitler read Nietzsche an decided that twisting it into his own world view was an intelligent thing to do. How is that a comment on anything else other than Hitlers extremly disturbed mentality?

Zillah · 07-11-2009 05:43AM

PDN wrote: »

I don't think the Nietzche thing is a valid argument for theism at all, but it is useful to keep in our back pockets for when the occasional atheist forgets their own glass house and starts getting too holier-than-thou in throwing stones at the Crusades or the Inquisition.

And for his next performance the AMAZING PDN will now explain why religion was not the cause of the Inquisition! Drum roll, please!

Dades · 07-11-2009 10:15AM

Zillah wrote: »

And for his next performance the AMAZING PDN will now explain why religion was not the cause of the Inquisition! Drum roll, please!

Everyone knows cats were to blame!

PDN · 07-11-2009 10:26AM

Zillah wrote: »

And for his next performance the AMAZING PDN will now explain why religion was not the cause of the Inquisition! Drum roll, please!

I never made such a claim, but if behaving likes a twat cheers your life up then don't let me stop you.

Handsome Bob · 07-11-2009 10:33AM

Galvasean wrote: »

Makes sense, considering dawkins is basically a 'sexed up' Emma Watson

FFS I told ye's to stop doing that before! :mad:

Dades · 07-11-2009 12:09PM

PDN wrote: »

I never made such a claim, but if behaving likes a twat cheers your life up then don't let me stop you.

If you have to rise to provocation please refrain from being so obvious with your insults.
Next time....

Galvasean · 07-11-2009 01:04PM

Dades wrote: »

Next time....

(couldn't find one that wasn't in a loop)

Zombrex · 07-11-2009 01:24PM

PDN wrote: »

I don't think the Nietzche thing is a valid argument for theism at all, but it is useful to keep in our back pockets for when the occasional atheist forgets their own glass house and starts getting too holier-than-thou in throwing stones at the Crusades or the Inquisition.

Except its not as you just demonstrated with your own post

The argument that religion causes "bad things" is an argument that the promise of supernatural nice thing X coupled with the authority of supernatural deity Y to grant X if you do what you are supposed to can manipulate people into doing "bad things"

You can't use that argument with atheism because atheism isn't a philosophy, it doesn't say doing this nor does it promise anything.

Philosophies that incorporate atheism as a tenant of belief certainly do, but that is a different argument altogether. You can be a Communist and atheist but you can't assume than an atheist is a Communist, nor does the simply statement of atheism imply anything along the lines of Communism.

By the freakish picture of the Dawkins Watson love child!!! Exactly how many more times do we have to go over that before you stop repeating your nonsense point over and over?

PDN · 07-11-2009 10:39PM

Wicknight wrote: »

By the freakish picture of the Dawkins Watson love child!!! Exactly how many more times do we have to go over that before you stop repeating your nonsense point over and over?

I didn't actually make the 'nonsense point' that you're arguing against. But, if it makes you happy ....

Soul Winner · 08-11-2009 04:19AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Look at the disaster that was the Christian apologetics thread, and that wasn't even started by an atheist.

Hey watch it buddy! The Apologetics thread has 261 responses and 4401 views, whereas this love in thread only has 132 responses and 2286 views. As Dades would say: "Swishes cloak and leaves..." But shakes fist at Wicknight as he goes... :mad:

PDN · 08-11-2009 07:38AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hey watch it buddy! The Apologetics thread has 261 responses and 4401 views, whereas this love in thread only has 132 responses and 2286 views. As Dades would say: "Swishes cloak and leaves..." But shakes fist at Wicknight as he goes... :mad:

It's not the size of a thread that's important, but what you do with it. :pac:

Soul Winner · 08-11-2009 12:29PM

PDN wrote: »

It's not the size of a thread that's important, but what you do with it. :pac:

+1

pH · 08-11-2009 02:21PM

stevejazzx wrote: »

Oh dear. What do you mean to say PDN? Is this your view?
The way you've phrased it makes it appear you're not sure what you're on about. Yes it appears Hitler read Nietzsche an decided that twisting it into his own world view was an intelligent thing to do. How is that a comment on anything else other than Hitlers extremly disturbed mentality?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUH1H-b-N5o

midlandsmissus · 08-11-2009 03:50PM

Dades wrote: »

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."

The atheist side of this one, annoys me:

Atheist: 'If there was a God why would he let bad things happen'
Me: 'God doesn't cause anything to happen. We have free will.
Atheist: No we don't. The bible says God is all powerful.
Me: So you think personally that your every move is controlled by some-one else and you have no independant thought?

Goes round and round in circles.

Ah we do irk eack other eh!

Dinner · 08-11-2009 04:03PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Atheist: 'If there was a God why would he let bad things happen'
Me: 'God doesn't cause anything to happen. We have free will.
Atheist: No we don't. The bible says God is all powerful.
Me: So you think personally that your every move is controlled by some-one else and you have no independant thought?

The reasoning there is that if God is all powerful, exists outside of time and is omniscient, then he knows everything that has happened in the past and everything that will happen in the future (if past and future exist to such an entity). So if god knows what will happen in the future, then surely that is the only thing that can happen. Therefore, free will is only an illusion as the choices presented to people don't really matter since the person is destined to chose one option that leads to the future that god knows.

But thats o/t. The arguments that annoy me have already been mentioned in the thread, but special mentions to 'the world is so fine tuned' and 'science can't/doesn't explain everything'.

midlandsmissus · 08-11-2009 05:32PM

Dinner wrote: »

The reasoning there is that if God is all powerful, exists outside of time and is omniscient, then he knows everything that has happened in the past and everything that will happen in the future (if past and future exist to such an entity). So if god knows what will happen in the future, then surely that is the only thing that can happen. Therefore, free will is only an illusion as the choices presented to people don't really matter since the person is destined to chose one option that leads to the future that god knows.

But thats o/t. The arguments that annoy me have already been mentioned in the thread, but special mentions to 'the world is so fine tuned' and 'science can't/doesn't explain everything'.

My main argument to that would be:

As religious sources mention both free will and omniscience, why are you picking and choosing omniscience over free will?

My interpretation of omniscience is different to yours. I think it means he knows what's going on at any moment in time, but not in the future, as it's also said that we have free will.

I would like to see what your interpretation of free will is.

CerebralCortex · 08-11-2009 05:51PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

My main argument to that would be:

As religious sources mention both free will and omniscience, why are you picking and choosing omniscience over free will?

My interpretation of omniscience is different to yours. I think it means he knows what's going on at any moment in time, but not in the future, as it's also said that we have free will.

Nice try, but that means he's not omniscient, sorry.

omniscience: the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge

fitz0 · 08-11-2009 05:52PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

My interpretation of omniscience is different to yours. I think it means he knows what's going on at any moment in time, but not in the future, as it's also said that we have free will.

So god is constrained by time? But I thought Christians considered god to be outside time. How can god be outside of time yet still be limited by it? Not very omniscient or all-powerful (even thought the two are mutually exclusive I often hear that god is both. What a contradiction your god is!)

Galvasean · 08-11-2009 08:12PM

There's another one I find annoying, 'interpretations' of things which are not supposed to be interpretated.

Zombrex · 08-11-2009 08:25PM

PDN wrote: »

I didn't actually make the 'nonsense point' that you're arguing against. But, if it makes you happy ....

What?

Zombrex · 08-11-2009 08:28PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hey watch it buddy! The Apologetics thread has 261 responses and 4401 views, whereas this love in thread only has 132 responses and 2286 views. As Dades would say: "Swishes cloak and leaves..." But shakes fist at Wicknight as he goes... :mad:

Yeah but you have to admit it was a disaster. Did you see a flurry of intelligent rational arguments for the truth of Christianity or did you see a flurry of You can't prove God doesn't exist!!! type nonsense. The latter unfortunately.

Zombrex · 08-11-2009 08:34PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

My main argument to that would be:

As religious sources mention both free will and omniscience, why are you picking and choosing omniscience over free will?

We aren't. You can have one or the other. But not both.

I would add the theists refusal to accept the logic behind this ("The Bible says that isn't the case who are you to argue it is!!" sort of thing) to my list of annoy theist lines of arguments.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

My interpretation of omniscience is different to yours. I think it means he knows what's going on at any moment in time, but not in the future, as it's also said that we have free will.

Fair enough but that isn't what omniscience means. Like I said, you can have one or the other. There is no issue with free will if God doesn't know the future.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I would like to see what your interpretation of free will is.

The ability to have your decisions and actions in the present determine the set up of the next time slice (ie the future)

Galvasean · 08-11-2009 08:42PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hey watch it buddy! The Apologetics thread has 261 responses and 4401 views, whereas this love in thread only has 132 responses and 2286 views. As Dades would say: "Swishes cloak and leaves..." But shakes fist at Wicknight as he goes... :mad:

By that logic the Creationism thread is the best (it's not).

Sam Vimes · 08-11-2009 09:54PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The atheist side of this one, annoys me:

Atheist: 'If there was a God why would he let bad things happen'
Me: 'God doesn't cause anything to happen. We have free will.
Atheist: No we don't. The bible says God is all powerful.
Me: So you think personally that your every move is controlled by some-one else and you have no independant thought?

Goes round and round in circles.

Ah we do irk eack other eh!

My problem with bad things happening to good people is miracles. God intervenes when he feels like it

Edit: free will also doesn't explain bad things that happen that aren't caused by other people, unless you think people sit down one day and say to themselves "I think I'll get a brain tumor today"

Dades · 08-11-2009 10:43PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Edit: free will also doesn't explain bad things that happen that aren't caused by other people, unless you think people sit down one day and say to themselves "I think I'll get a brain tumor today"

We haven't even mentioned natural disasters yet.

Here - have free will! Just watch out for my killer waves, earthshaking, molten rock and storms that will destroy everything you own.

Turtwig · 08-11-2009 10:47PM

Dades wrote: »

We haven't even mentioned natural disasters yet.

Here - have free will! Just watch out for my killer waves, earthshaking, molten rock and storms that will destroy everything you own.

Pftt, that's because of the fall everything was perfect until Adam and Eve mucked it all up.:rolleyes:

Soul Winner · 09-11-2009 01:10PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Yeah but you have to admit it was a disaster. Did you see a flurry of intelligent rational arguments for the truth of Christianity or did you see a flurry of You can't prove God doesn't exist!!! type nonsense. The latter unfortunately.

No I don't accept that it is a disaster thread at all. It has stayed on topic for the most part and can still be added to. I've answered most if not all your objections but you just don't accept those answers, and that's fine. Plus I don't see how it has degenerated into a You can't prove God doesn't exist!!! kind of thread either. Where did you get that from? We left off talking about the nuttyness or not of Jesus to which I will reply in full later today. It has probably turned into a disaster thread for you but not for me, but like I said I will reply in full on that thread later...

Galvasean · 12-11-2009 01:03PM

I really should stop reading the letters section in the Indo.... Yesterday someone stated along the lines of "There is much more evidence for the existence of Jesus via eye witness accounts than there is for evolution from nothing". *sigh* Where to begin?

Most annoying theist lines of argument?

Comments