Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 06:29AM

farna_boy wrote: »

No the default position of a child is ignorance to everything in the world

How can you possibly say that?

Children are not ignorant, they find even the most trivial of things such as a train turning as fascinating. It is only when we grow up that we become ignorant by thinking we know everything and that it's not interesting, and that our common sense prejudiced view of reality is infallible.
I know kids todays that can visualise science theories like I wish I could and in ways that my parents certainly had no hope of.

Kids are open to new ideas; adults are, if anything, reluctant to anything new!

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 06:45AM

The God Hypothesis is that there exists an immutable, omniscient, omnipotent blah blah thingy/entity that exists outside the realms of the observable natural world.
Ok, so, from a science point of view that may or may not be true but who does the burden of evidence lie with?
The person disproving the hypothesis, or the person who proposed it?
Well, a negative proof is irrational and impractical. I mean, you could spend all eternity trying to disprove the non-existence of the non-ant living outside my house when you're only allowed to make observations inside my house. In the end what the theists resorts to is crap like because I can't disprove it then its odd of existence are 50/50 and the burden of proof lies equally between us.

No,
In science every hypothesis lives or dies by its evidence, theists have had over 100,000 years to prove their God hypothesis - so far nada, zilch nothing.
Maybe it's time for a new hypothesis?

liamw · 12-11-2009 09:50AM

Malty_T wrote: »

How can you possibly say that?

Children are not ignorant, they find even the most trivial of things such as a train turning as fascinating. It is only when we grow up that we become ignorant by thinking we know everything and that it's not interesting, and that our common sense prejudiced view of reality is infallible.
I know kids todays that can visualise science theories like I wish I could and in ways that my parents certainly had no hope of.

Kids are open to new ideas; adults are, if anything, reluctant to anything new!

I think you have the wrong definition for the word 'ignorant'.

Well, I've just looked up the definition:
"Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information."

I think you are talking about the second part, and farna_boy may be referring to the first part

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 10:03AM

liamw wrote: »

I think you have the wrong definition for the word 'ignorant'.

Well, I've just looked up the definition:
"Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information."

I think you are talking about the second part, and farna_boy may be referring to the first part

My Mistake apologies.

Learn something new everyday:)

Tim Robbins · 12-11-2009 10:26AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Tim

Section. Chunk. Same thing. If you want to talk about something in a book, and you can not remember that part of the book then I advise re-reading it. I do not care if it is a word, sentence, paragraph, page, section, chunk, smattering or whatever, my advice remains the same.

The same with labelling and categorising. Regardless of which word word you use my point that I am getting across here is the same so please, use whatever word you like to describe it but here is my point again: Telling someone what they are, when they have not expressed that themselves or worse are even too young to be even capable of deciding what they are themselves is what my point is here. You can call that anything you want. Labelling. Categorising. Or splidubillywuptiyfying. I do not care. The point remains the same.

So you make a big issue over my use of words between labelling and indoctrination but as far as you are concerned it's ok for you to use inaccurate terminology between labelling and categorisation.

You are being annoyingly inconsistent.

If you think in this context that naming and labelling are equivalent then so be it. That is your mistake.

I was actually a lot more precies than that. It's now you who are dumbing things down.

The second person I am thinking of is called Sam. Now if you can come back and tell me something about that person from that morsel of information, nothing but their name, beyond “Their name is Sam” I will be somewhat impressed. Why? Because the former is labelling them and telling you a lot about them. The second is naming them and tells you nothing. Nadda. Zilch. Nichts. In fact from the person I chose, you could not even tell me what sex they are. Labelling entails inherent meaning, naming does not.

I accept the differences between identification and categorisation. In fact I have explained them several times. But both identfication and categorisation are labelling. I am just being precise on that specific issue, you are just being imprecise.

Tim Robbins · 12-11-2009 10:28AM

ShooterSF wrote: »

I've quoted it again here to see if it helps.
...

Sorry. Totally lost you.

farna_boy · 12-11-2009 10:46AM

Zillah wrote: »

Oh God I am so sick of hearing this. Yes, science does not say "there is no God", but when you or any of your magic-believing kin present the God-hypothesis science says "insufficient data, circular unfalsifiable position, hypothesis fails". It is not that science is stumped by the topic of God, it is that the very notion is so devoid of intellectual worth that it is beneath its notice. Science hears ya, science don't care.

As an atheist I rely on sceptical inquiry. Science is a formalised system of sceptical inquiry.

Not sure that I agree with this. I think scientists realised a long time ago that no one can directly prove or disprove whether god exists. As with many other areas, scientists look at indirect ways in which the probability of a god can be increased or decreased i.e. if the LHC can find the "God Particle", the probability decreases, otherwise it remains the same (low admittedly).

Take for example dark matter. Most people believe this can explain many effects that we cannot currently explain in the universe. Others have proposed different reasons for these effects but dark matter is believed to be the truth. As it stands, no one can verify the existence of dark matter because the technology is not available, so scientists are looking at indirect ways to prove it or at least increase its probability of being.

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 10:53AM

farna_boy wrote: »

Not sure that I agree with this. I think scientists realised a long time ago that no one can directly prove or disprove whether god exists. As with many other areas, scientists look at indirect ways in which the probability of a god can be increased or decreased i.e. if the LHC can find the "God Particle", the probability decreases, otherwise it remains the same (low admittedly).

Take for example dark matter. Most people believe this can explain many effects that we cannot currently explain in the universe. Others have proposed different reasons for these effects but dark matter is believed to be the truth. As it stands, no one can verify the existence of dark matter because the technology is not available, so scientists are looking at indirect ways to prove it or at least increase its probability of being.

Science doesn't give a sh1t about God's existence, period.
No probabilities are assigned to His/Her/Its existence.

Sam Vimes · 12-11-2009 11:03AM

Malty_T wrote: »

Science doesn't give a sh1t about God, period.
No probabilities are assigned to His/Her/Its existence.

It does care about some of the claims that are made though. Things like the power of prayer and miracles and visions etc are within the realms of science because they happen in this universe and are falsifiable to some extent. Prayer's a tricky one to falsify because they can just claim god didn't grant what was asked for but it's trivial to show that over a long period of time you'll have exactly the same amount of success through praying to God as to Spongebob.

edit: When I say these things are falsifiable what I mean is, for example, if someone has a vision while in an MRI scanner they can pinpoint exactly what caused the vision (hallucination) and give it a perfectly naturalistic explanation. That will never be good enough for the believer though, they'll just say that's the method god used to give them the vision or some such. So we can consider some of the claims falsified but no amount of evidence is enough for the true believer

farna_boy · 12-11-2009 11:08AM

Malty_T wrote: »

Science doesn't give a sh1t about God, period.
No probabilities are assigned to His/Her/Its existence.

Science is not arrogant, does not have airs and graces. It can prove something or disprove something and if it can't it does its best to do so. Just because you or I don't give a sh1t about something, does it mean that science doesn't?

Do I care if the universe is spherical or planar or some other polygon? No.
Will it make a difference to me? No.
Will it make a difference to scientists/science? Yes.

Anyway, using science to prove or disprove god is pointless at this time and was already quoted as being a poor arguement on both sides.

So back on topic, what other poor arguements by atheists make you cringe?

Dades · 12-11-2009 11:11AM

farna_boy wrote: »

As with many other areas, scientists look at indirect ways in which the probability of a god can be increased or decreased i.e. if the LHC can find the "God Particle", the probability decreases, otherwise it remains the same (low admittedly).

The "God Particle" is (afaik) just a label given to a theoretical particle that might be some sort of 'primer' to enable scientists to fill in the knowledge gaps in quantum physics - in the same way for some, "God" fills in the gaps of human knowledge.

The continuing search for such particle(s) is in no way an attempt to find a god - merely to understand how our universe works at a quantum level.

farna_boy · 12-11-2009 11:16AM

Dades wrote: »

The "God Particle" is (afaik) just a label given to a theoretical particle that might be some sort of 'primer' to enable scientists to fill in the knowledge gaps in quantum physics - in the same way for some "God" fills in the gaps of human knowledge.

The continuing search for such particle(s) is in no way an attempt to find a god - merely to understand how our universe works at a quantum level.

Granted. But if it leads to an eventual proof that everything could have happened without an outside force, it could be used as a proof that there is no god or at least there is no scientific basis for god as a creator to exist.

ShooterSF · 12-11-2009 11:30AM

farna_boy wrote: »

Granted. But if it leads to an eventual proof that everything could have happened without an outside force, it could be used as a proof that there is no god or at least there is no scientific basis for god as a creator to exist.

Not really. Religions will just tell us god put it there in the first place.

Sam Vimes · 12-11-2009 11:35AM

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not really. Religions will just tell us god put it there in the first place.

True. You hear of things like "theistic evolution" from believers. When I ask them what exactly that means and ask if they accept evolution as science says it is they say something along the lines of "Yeah, but god guided it" or some such. By saying that they're demoting god to nothing more than a farmer engaging in selective breeding but I don't think they see it that way.

Dades · 12-11-2009 11:36AM

farna_boy wrote: »

it could be used as a proof that there is no god or at least there is no scientific basis for god as a creator to exist.

There's already no scientific basis for god as a creator to exist. But as long as there are gaps in our knowledge (and there always will be) people will plug their god in there.

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 11:38AM

farna_boy wrote: »

Anyway, using science to prove or disprove god is pointless at this time and was already quoted as being a poor arguement on both sides.

So back on topic, what other poor arguements by atheists make you cringe?

No not back on topic yet!

Science will NEVER be able to prove/disprove God He/She/It is always gonna be outside its grasp.

Zillah · 12-11-2009 11:39AM

farna_boy wrote: »

Not sure that I agree with this. I think scientists realised a long time ago that no one can directly prove or disprove whether god exists.

Science never proves anything. It builds the best models by which to explain how the world works. A model based on God is a terrible model that fails to meet even basic requirements for intellectual integrity.

As with many other areas, scientists look at indirect ways in which the probability of a god can be increased or decreased i.e. if the LHC can find the "God Particle", the probability decreases, otherwise it remains the same (low admittedly).

You are referring to the Higgs Boson, which has absolutely nothing to do with God whatsoever. It is a theorised particle predicted by our models. Idiots nicknamed it the god particle for no apparent reason. It has zero to do with this thread.

Take for example dark matter. Most people believe this can explain many effects that we cannot currently explain in the universe. Others have proposed different reasons for these effects but dark matter is believed to be the truth. As it stands, no one can verify the existence of dark matter because the technology is not available, so scientists are looking at indirect ways to prove it or at least increase its probability of being.

Apparently you don't really understand Dark Matter. It is not an explanation or anything like that, it is an observed phenomena; that there is more gravity than observable matter can account for. It was called Dark Matter because the only thing we know of that can cause gravity is matter, and we can't see it, hence, dark. You are right that there are different hypotheses to explain this phenomenon but once again it has exactly zero to do with this thread.

Granted. But if it leads to an eventual proof that everything could have happened without an outside force, it could be used as a proof that there is no god or at least there is no scientific basis for god as a creator to exist.

You can't ever prove that God doesn't exist because he is magic. That's one of the reasons the entire thing is laughable from a scientific point of view; it is unfalsifiable. Look up falsifiability on wikipedia if you'd like to learn more.

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 11:43AM

farna_boy wrote: »

Granted. But if it leads to an eventual proof that everything could have happened without an outside force, it could be used as a proof that there is no god or at least there is no scientific basis for god as a creator to exist.

If you conceptualise an entity creator who is outside ALL observable reality and can create a process that runs naturally of its own accord.
Then no lack of outside forces is going to disprove that entity using science.

See Furgoargorock
(Science can't disprove that either.)

farna_boy · 12-11-2009 11:44AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

True. You hear of things like "theistic evolution" from believers. When I ask them what exactly that means and ask if they accept evolution as science says it is they say something along the lines of "Yeah, but god guided it" or some such.

That is the position of the Catholic Church. It has accepted that evolution is how things happened and that is how I was taught it at school (by my scientist teacher who was a priest).

Sam Vimes wrote: »

By saying that they're demoting god to nothing more than a farmer engaging in selective breeding but I don't think they see it that way.

Not a bad analogy but I'm not sure how you see it as demoting god.

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 11:57AM

farna_boy wrote: »

That is the position of the Catholic Church. It has accepted that evolution is how things happened and that is how I was taught it at school (by my scientist teacher who was a priest).

Not a bad analogy but I'm not sure how you see it as demoting god.

Evolution favoured people in parts of Africa to have a "sickled" red blood cell this proved advantageous when fighting malaria, meaning more Africans survived and reproduced.However it is also responsible for a lifelong disorder giving a life expectancy of under 50 years. Plenty of time to reproduce but not beneficial in any way.
If God was omniscient, he could have chosen a process other than evolution which would have avoided it such diseases (believe me there are many).
Hence, Evolution demotes his omniscients and omnipotency.

However, It should be noted though that evolution, while nasty, is a very elegant simple process.

Sam Vimes · 12-11-2009 12:00PM

farna_boy wrote: »

Not a bad analogy but I'm not sure how you see it as demoting god.

Because god is supposed to be supernatural and the complexity of life is supposed to be evidence of his existence and intelligence but if he used the naturalistic process of evolution to bring it about then it could have happened just as easily without him, they're sticking him in there for no good reason. It's like saying that because the laws of physics allowed me to build a house that it's a theistic house and god was involved in building it.

It's one thing to invoke a god to explain things that are currently unexplainable, that's the god of the gaps, but insisting that god was involved in things that have already been explained and calling them "theistic" means that the label can be stuck on everything that has ever happened in the history of the universe.

The formation of the earth might have happened within the laws of nature but god was involved anyway, it's a theistic earth

When there was a drought and the crops were about to die but it began to rain at the last second, it might have a natural explanation but god made it rain. It's theistic rain

When someone had cancer and they had chemotherapy that cured them, god helped the chemotherapy. It's theistic chemotherapy.

The other day when I took a crap, that was theistic poo.

And so on. Once you start sticking god into both the unexplainable and the explainable there is no end to the "evidence" you can find for his existence

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 12:01PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The other day when I took a crap, that was theistic poo.

Theistic poo brilliant.:D:D

doctoremma · 12-11-2009 12:03PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Hence, Evolution demotes his omniscients and omnipotency.

I agree. People sometimes evoke "fine-tuning" as an argument for god but I always find that to be entirely subjective (are we really so perfectly tuned?). Have you seen the number of mistakes in the natural world, the number of bizarre creatures there are, the number of different ways that animals arrive at the same end point but by radically different methods (flat fish, anyone?). If god needed several shots at his instructions on how to create a perfect world, he can't really be omni-anything. And he didn't manage to make a perfect world.

farna_boy · 12-11-2009 12:04PM

Zillah wrote: »

Apparently you don't really understand Dark Matter. It is not an explanation or anything like that, it is an observed phenomena; that there is more gravity than observable matter can account for. It was called Dark Matter because the only thing we know of that can cause gravity is matter, and we can't see it, hence, dark. You are right that there are different hypotheses to explain this phenomenon but once again it has exactly zero to do with this thread.

It was an analogy. Something that can not be seen, to some an entirely justifible explanation, to others a hypothesis they don't believe to be true.

Zillah · 12-11-2009 12:04PM

Malty_T wrote: »

See Furgoargorock

I haven't heard this in years, thank you.

You can ride on it!

farna_boy wrote: »

It was an analogy. Something that can not be seen, to some an entirely justifible explanation, to others a hypothesis they don't believe to be true.

Ok but as I just explained, Dark Matter is not an explanation, it is an observed phenomena. Also it is not unseen, it can quite clearly by detected via gravitational lensing.

And it still has nothing to do with God, except perhaps as a useless demonstration of the fact that people disagree on things sometimes.

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 12:06PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I agree. People sometimes evoke "fine-tuning" as an argument for god but I always find that to be entirely subjective (are we really so perfectly tuned?). Have you seen the number of mistakes in the natural world, the number of bizarre creatures there are, the number of different ways that animals arrive at the same end point but by radically different methods (flat fish, anyone?). If god needed several shots at his instructions on how to create a perfect world, he can't really be omni-anything. And he didn't manage to make a perfect world.

Some Comedian suggested he was high at the time of creation...
I can't remember who though, the video is on youtube somewhere...

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 12:09PM

farna_boy wrote: »

It was an analogy. Something that can not be seen, to some an entirely justifible explanation, to others a hypothesis they don't believe to be true.

It's still not a fair analogy though,

Dark Matter is a scientific hypothesis, science will devise an experiment to test the hypothesis and decide whether to keep it or dump it.

God is not a scientific hypothesis, if he/she/it were, we'd long since have moved on.

Maybe with String Theory though you might have a point (Don't think anyone has devised any experiments for that yet)

Sam Vimes · 12-11-2009 12:09PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I agree. People sometimes evoke "fine-tuning" as an argument for god but I always find that to be entirely subjective (are we really so perfectly tuned?). Have you seen the number of mistakes in the natural world, the number of bizarre creatures there are, the number of different ways that animals arrive at the same end point but by radically different methods (flat fish, anyone?). If god needed several shots at his instructions on how to create a perfect world, he can't really be omni-anything. And he didn't manage to make a perfect world.

Thoroughbred animals usually have loads of health problems associated with inbreeding. The best way to ensure a healthy animal is to have a good dose of genetic diversity. If we were actually fine tuned genetic diversity wouldn't be necessary because the point of it is to decrease the chances of one of the many flaws in our DNA becoming dominant.

farna_boy · 12-11-2009 12:10PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I agree. People sometimes evoke "fine-tuning" as an argument for god but I always find that to be entirely subjective (are we really so perfectly tuned?). Have you seen the number of mistakes in the natural world, the number of bizarre creatures there are, the number of different ways that animals arrive at the same end point but by radically different methods (flat fish, anyone?). If god needed several shots at his instructions on how to create a perfect world, he can't really be omni-anything. And he didn't manage to make a perfect world.

Circa 4:12.

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 12:24PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I agree. People sometimes evoke "fine-tuning" as an argument for god but I always find that to be entirely subjective (are we really so perfectly tuned?). Have you seen the number of mistakes in the natural world, the number of bizarre creatures there are, the number of different ways that animals arrive at the same end point but by radically different methods (flat fish, anyone?). If god needed several shots at his instructions on how to create a perfect world, he can't really be omni-anything. And he didn't manage to make a perfect world.

Not comedian but still very illustrative.:)

Warning Below Video Contains Graphic Images that some may find disturbing

Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

Comments