Most annoying theist lines of argument?

toiletduck · 12-11-2009 01:33PM

Didn't it also say the same for the big bang, then lump the two in with fairies as being "theories and fairytales". I noted the letter writer was from Opus Dei. Quelle surprise.

Galvasean · 12-11-2009 01:56PM

toiletduck wrote: »

Didn't it also say the same for the big bang, then lump the two in with fairies as being "theories and fairytales". I noted the letter writer was from Opus Dei. Quelle surprise.

Yes I seem to recall it did. Chalk up another one for the "Evolution is only a theory" brigade.
I didn't notice the Opus Dei bit though.

cavedave · 12-11-2009 02:40PM

Isn't the satement "There is much more evidence for the existence of Jesus via eye witness accounts than there is for evolution from nothing" technically correct? There is no evidence of evolution from nothing as evolution only deals with already living things? So the statement is as nonsensical as something like "there is much more evidence for the existence of mermaids via eye witness accounts than there is for gravitational attraction of concepts"

Flamed Diving · 12-11-2009 02:46PM

Christians who believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, and then proceed to ignore half of it, and iron over the contradictions with moronic platitudes which completely contradict their belief in an infallible Bible, and all with a empty smile on their face.

Galvasean · 12-11-2009 02:54PM

cavedave wrote: »

Isn't the satement "There is much more evidence for the existence of Jesus via eye witness accounts than there is for evolution from nothing" technically correct? There is no evidence of evolution from nothing as evolution only deals with already living things? So the statement is as nonsensical as something like "there is much more evidence for the existence of mermaids via eye witness accounts than there is for gravitational attraction of concepts"

Exactly. While the statement is technically correct if viewed on it's own. However, in the context it was presented it is cherry picking and misrepresenting the theory of evolution.
You could say there is more evidence from eyewitness accounts for a living Elvis Presley than evolution. While technically that too is correct it is completely ignoring every other piece of evidence that suggests that Elvis is dead and evolution is very real.

liah · 12-11-2009 02:56PM

"Evolution is only a theory!"

Complete and utter lack of understanding of the scientific version of the word "theory"... drives me bonkers.

cavedave · 12-11-2009 03:02PM

Galvasean

You could say there is more evidence from eyewitness accounts for a living Elvis Presley than evolution.

I do not think you can. Any farmer who looks at their stock sees evidence for evolution once they know how to look. similarly biologists, pet owners, gardeners etc do. My point was that people don't see evidence of "evolution from nothing"

Sam Vimes · 12-11-2009 03:04PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Christians who believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, and then proceed to ignore half of it, and iron over the contradictions with moronic platitudes which completely contradict their belief in an infallible Bible, and all with a empty smile on their face.

A good example of such rationalisation: http://thedarwinreport.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/the-dishonesty-of-christian-apologists/

Although at least they usually have the decency to gloss over it or explain it in a way that attempts to make it both consistent and moral. Things like the labelling of slavery as "hired labour", while bullsh!t, would make it acceptable if they were true. Sometimes you see people try to justify things in the most bizarre way, such as this one I got from someone trying to justify slavery. I said that the reason slavery is not like hired labour (along with being allowed beat them) is that slaves didn't willingly become slaves and don't have their freedom and the response I got was:

"The Israelites declared it unlawful to return a slave who had escaped from his master. Deuteronomy 23:15 deals with this explicitly."

So if the slave manages to escape his master they don't force him to go back. Well that makes it all ok then

I'm sure Elisabeth Fritzl will be delighted to hear that

Sam Vimes · 12-11-2009 03:06PM

cavedave wrote: »

I do not think you can. Any farmer who looks at their stock sees evidence for evolution once they know how to look. similarly biologists, pet owners, gardeners etc do. My point was that people don't see evidence of "evolution from nothing"

Which is of course because no one ever claimed that anything evolved from nothing. The person seems to think that evolution is used to explain the creation of matter

Plowman · 12-11-2009 06:18PM

This post has been deleted.

cavedave · 12-11-2009 06:34PM

There is more fundamental eyewitness evidence for the resurrection

Oh good he means eyewitness as in someone who saw evidence of rather than someone who saw this exact event happening. Which makes him even more wrong because there is plenty of eye witness evidence of the big bang, evolution by this criteria.

Also there is more eyewitness evidence of the tooth fairy then of jesus's resurrection if you think about it. Thousands of children a year must imagine they see the tooth fairy whereas only about 50 people imagined they saw the dead jesus resurrected.

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 06:39PM

cavedave wrote: »

Oh good he means eyewitness as in someone who saw evidence of rather than someone who saw this exact event happening. Which makes him even more wrong because there is plenty of eye witness evidence of the big bang, evolution by this criteria.

Also there is more eyewitness evidence of the tooth fairy then of jesus's resurrection if you think about it. Thousands of children a year must imagine they see the tooth fairy whereas only about 50 people imagined they saw the dead jesus resurrected.

I'm gonna watch the Big Bang on tv in a second (yep still got the old piece of crap tv that allows you watch it):D
Tell me Mr Rice, when am I going to be able to watch the resurrection.

Galvasean · 12-11-2009 10:36PM

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm gonna watch the Big Bang on tv in a second (yep still got the old piece of crap tv that allows you watch it):D

Surely you arent referring to that urban myth that says, 'The black and grey static on blank TV stations is left overs from the big bang' baloney?
Or are you talking about that TV show The Big Bang Theory.

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 10:49PM

Galvasean wrote: »

Surely you arent referring to that urban myth that says, 'The black and grey static on blank TV stations is left overs from the big bang' baloney?
Or are you talking about that TV show The Big Bang Theory.

Don't think it's an urban myth.
Feel free to prove me wrong.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/882699/where_does_white_noise_come_from/

Flamed Diving · 12-11-2009 11:00PM

Galvasean wrote: »

Surely you arent referring to that urban myth that says, 'The black and grey static on blank TV stations is left overs from the big bang' baloney?
Or are you talking about that TV show The Big Bang Theory.

The Big Bang's Playing on TV

Several members of the NASA Goddard COBE team work on WMAP. Like COBE, WMAP scans the sky over and over again, soaking up the ancient light from the Big Bang known as the cosmic microwave background. Microwaves are a low-energy form of radiation but higher in energy than radio waves. The cosmic microwave background blankets the universe and is responsible for a sizeable amount of static on your television set--well, before the days of cable. Turn your television to an "in between" channel, and part of the static you'll see is the afterglow of the big bang.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/cobe_background.html

Galvasean · 12-11-2009 11:20PM

WOAH!!!!!!! :eek:
That's insane! I always assumed it was one of those weird made up factoids that just got spread about.

Flamed Diving · 12-11-2009 11:22PM

Galvasean wrote: »

WOAH!!!!!!! :eek:
That's insane! I always assumed it was one of those weird made up factoids that just got spread about.

Yeah, it does seem like one alright. You just had your skeptrometer turned up too high.

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 11:23PM

Galvasean wrote: »

WOAH!!!!!!! :eek:
That's insane! I always assumed it was one of those weird made up factoids that just got spread about.

Science Rocks!

Galvasean · 12-11-2009 11:26PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yeah, it does seem like one alright. You just had your skeptrometer turned up too high.

I'll say. Just sounded like one of those 'so bonkers surely it cant be true!' kind of things.

Malty_T wrote: »

Science Rocks!

*watches the big bang on TV.*

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 11:32PM

Galvasean wrote: »

I'll say. Just sounded like one of those 'so bonkers surely it cant be true!' kind of things.

*watches the big bang on TV.*

MYTH CONFIRMED.

Now it's the resurrections turn.:)

Flamed Diving · 12-11-2009 11:38PM

Malty_T wrote: »

MYTH CONFIRMED.

Now it's the resurrections turn.:)

One thing that confuses me about that show. If a myth is confirmed, then surely that means the myth is busted, right? Since it is a myth, no longer.

I proclaim this Flamed's Paradox.

Turtwig · 12-11-2009 11:41PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

One thing that confuses me about that show. If a myth is confirmed, then surely that means the myth is busted, right? Since it is a myth, no longer.

I proclaim this Flamed's Paradox.

If the MYTH is confirmed then it's a valid story/concept.

If the MYTH is busted then its validity as story or concept is zero.

Flamed Diving · 12-11-2009 11:46PM

Malty_T wrote: »

If the MYTH is confirmed then it's a valid story/concept.

If the MYTH is busted then its validity as story or concept is zero.

Myth --> Test --> Confirmed --> Non-myth --> Myth Busted

where --> means "implies"

Flamed's Paradox holds.

robindch · 13-11-2009 12:35AM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

where --> means "implies"

I'd go with "=>"

Flamed Diving wrote: »

If a myth is confirmed, then surely that means the myth is busted, right? Since it is a myth, no longer.

At the risk of being dangerously pedantic, the primary meaning of the Ancient Greek word μuθος is 'something delivered by word of mouth', or in a wider sense, a narrative of any description, without any implication of truth or falsity. In academic circles, the descendant word 'myth' still tends to stick fairly closely to that original meaning.

Things became less clear when μuθος (mythos) was used to describe a narrative means of illustrating some eternal truth (ie, a moralizing tale), in contradistinction with λόγος (logos), the theory and practice of illustrating similar worthy conclusions through some logical, rational means (usually much harder to do). Hence, mythos acquired over time, and by disjunction, an air of mystery and uncertainty, if not the improbable too.

So, getting back to English, "myth busted" and "myth confirmed" are consistent things do say, since "myth", in its strict rather than colloquial sense, does not imply that the story is either true or false. It's perhaps a bit like the word "theory" in its two senses.

Flame's paradox -- busted, I'm afraid.

Flamed Diving · 13-11-2009 01:24PM

I'm tempted to go JC on this, just for fun.

pH · 13-11-2009 04:19PM

Well here's an annoying theist line of argument ...

When confronted with this:

"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock," (Psalm 137:9).

The answer is "Well that's only a psalmist's opinion, where does it say that's what God thinks eh?

The Psalmist is in exile and had probably witnessed the atrocities committed against his people, babies included. In the revenge-style that was so common at the time, he wishes the same upon his enemy as a description of their utter destruction. Nowhere does it say that God approves of the Psalmist’s request or that he fulfilled it. Just because it is recorded that the Psalmist wrote the imprecation, doesn’t mean it was approved by God.
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/job-song-solomon/why-does-psalmist-speak-about-killing-children

Whereas another guy can make a comment about homosexuals in a couple of letters he wrote and that's "The word of the Lord ... Hallelujah!"

Sam Vimes · 13-11-2009 05:32PM

pH wrote: »

Well here's an annoying theist line of argument ...

When confronted with this:

"How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock," (Psalm 137:9).

The answer is "Well that's only a psalmist's opinion, where does it say that's what God thinks eh?

The Psalmist is in exile and had probably witnessed the atrocities committed against his people, babies included. In the revenge-style that was so common at the time, he wishes the same upon his enemy as a description of their utter destruction. Nowhere does it say that God approves of the Psalmist’s request or that he fulfilled it. Just because it is recorded that the Psalmist wrote the imprecation, doesn’t mean it was approved by God.
http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/job-song-solomon/why-does-psalmist-speak-about-killing-children

Whereas another guy can make a comment about homosexuals in a couple of letters he wrote and that's "The word of the Lord ... Hallelujah!"

And to make it even worse he continues with this little gem:

Also, the critics need to provide an acceptable, objective moral standard by which they can criticize biblical morality. It is one thing to complain. It is another to offer a justification for the validity of the complaint. By what right and by what objective ethical standard do the critics offer moral condemnation against Biblical morals? This is a serious question that if not answered by the critics, renders the critics’ complaints moot. After all, you must first have a standard against which to measure good and bad and without a standard, no complaints can be legitimately offered.

The old "there is no morality unless it's written in our book" bullsh!t :facepalm:

bnt · 18-11-2009 09:57PM

Anything on this list: The Problem of Evil: The Top 15 Excuses Religious People Give for the Horrible Behavior of their God. Example:

(15) Evil is necessary to prove God’s existence.
The existence of evil proves the existence of God because without a God-given sense of good and bad we would not be able to identify some things as evil in the first place.

Where's the "bang your head against the wall" Smiley gone?

Zombrex · 23-11-2009 12:22AM

After the other thread I'm adding

Religion goes beyond science in explaining the universe

Very annoying because anything can go "beyond" science at explaining the universe if you are prepared to abandon standards about what an explanation is and whether you would accept it, and just start guessing and accepting your guesses.

This is also why I insist that religion is inherently anti-scientific.

Sam Vimes · 23-11-2009 10:24AM

And the belittling of science, talking about it as if it's just someone's biased and flawed opinion to try to bring it down to the level of things that are actually just biased and flawed opinions

Most annoying theist lines of argument?

Comments