Most annoying theist lines of argument?

Sam Vimes · 23-11-2009 10:37AM

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

And "science deals with the how, religion deals with the why". Who said there's a why

robindch · 23-11-2009 11:04AM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Who said there's a why

The religious do -- their jobs, status, identity, positions, incomes, political power and reputations depend on it.

Turtwig · 23-11-2009 11:46PM

Just got reminded of this from another thread.

"If you don't believe in God, then what have you got to live for?"
:mad:

I kid you not, that was the closest I came to punching someone for the first time.
Other than my brothers:)

pH · 24-11-2009 12:10AM

Malty_T wrote: »

"If you don't believe in God, then what have you got to live for?"
:mad:

I dislike it for another reason altogether. The theist doesn't really mean, 'believe', 'believe' is a shorthand for 'worship and know the mind of ...", and this is where theists manage to drag many arguments, into questions about God's existence or belief in him.

For example, you could believe in God in a deist kind of way, but in that scenario a deist's life (from a theist's perspective) has no more meaning than an atheist's.

What the theist is getting at is this notion that your life is somehow a cosmic test, God sticks your soul in an evolved carbon based lifeform for 70ish years, testing you to see if you can be rewarded. This obviously gives life meaning, but has nothing really to do with belief, what they're really saying is that knowing the mind of God (what he wants and will reward) and following those instructions gives life meaning.

Which is pretty much like saying that unless there's a test at the end why would anyone do anything? Read a book? listen to a symphony? With no test at the end, why on earth would you bother?

Zombrex · 24-11-2009 11:08AM

pH wrote: »

I dislike it for another reason altogether. The theist doesn't really mean, 'believe', 'believe' is a shorthand for 'worship and know the mind of ...", and this is where theists manage to drag many arguments, into questions about God's existence or belief in him.

For example, you could believe in God in a deist kind of way, but in that scenario a deist's life (from a theist's perspective) has no more meaning than an atheist's.

What the theist is getting at is this notion that your life is somehow a cosmic test, God sticks your soul in an evolved carbon based lifeform for 70ish years, testing you to see if you can be rewarded. This obviously gives life meaning, but has nothing really to do with belief, what they're really saying is that knowing the mind of God (what he wants and will reward) and following those instructions gives life meaning.

Which is pretty much like saying that unless there's a test at the end why would anyone do anything? Read a book? listen to a symphony? With no test at the end, why on earth would you bother?

Yeah that is a good point. There is an implicit implication (is that right?) in the theist argument that knowing that God exists means you would happily accept the meaning he has given to your life.

It doesn't just mean believing God exists but believing God is the wonderful thing that the theists believes he is. The fact that this is taken almost for granted by theists I think speaks a lot to why they believe in God in the first place. A not particularly wonderful creator deity doesn't serve any purpose as far as they are concerned, the point of God is to provide these things that they wish for, such as a given meaning to their lives.

Funglegunk · 25-11-2009 12:41PM

pH wrote: »

What the theist is getting at is this notion that your life is somehow a cosmic test, God sticks your soul in an evolved carbon based lifeform for 70ish years, testing you to see if you can be rewarded. This obviously gives life meaning, but has nothing really to do with belief, what they're really saying is that knowing the mind of God (what he wants and will reward) and following those instructions gives life meaning.

Which is pretty much like saying that unless there's a test at the end why would anyone do anything? Read a book? listen to a symphony? With no test at the end, why on earth would you bother?

Succinctly put I feel. That's what's always baffled me about claims that theistic morality is somehow better than any morality atheists possess: the above two paragraphs seems to make it impossible for theists to do anything good for purely altruistic reasons. Whereas that is very possible if you are an atheist.

Sam Vimes · 25-11-2009 12:53PM

Funglegunk wrote: »

Succinctly put I feel. That's what's always baffled me about theistic morality somehow being better than any morality atheists possess: the above two paragraphs seems to make it impossible for theists to do anything good for purely altruistic reasons. Whereas that is very possible if you are an atheist.

Personally I don't think theists believe that people are naturally altruistic, imo it's one of the main reasons why religion was invented in the first place, that people didn't think anyone would behave properly unless there was some external motivation, be it fear of punishment or love of god or whatever. They didn't see why anyone would do good for the sake of doing good. Of course they didn't understand evolution and how we have evolved empathy and altruism that compels us to help each other out and makes us feel the pain of others because it's good for society and the species as a whole.

Which brings me to another annoying theist argument (can't remember if it was mentioned already): "without god morality is just someone's personal taste" :mad:

A desire to have your family slaughtered is not a "personal taste" fcukwits. If you can't explain why it's wrong to kill someone without mentioning an old book of fairy stories you should be locked up in case you ever stop believing and go on a killing spree.

Goduznt Xzst · 25-11-2009 12:56PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And "science deals with the how, religion deals with the why". Who said there's a why

Funglegunk · 25-11-2009 01:18PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

...people didn't think anyone would behave properly unless there was some external motivation, be it fear of punishment or love of god or whatever. They didn't see why anyone would do good for the sake of doing good.

Doesn't say much for theistic morality does it? All the more frustrating when being accused of 'having no morals' because of a lack of belief in God. How do theists explain the fact that all atheists aren't a bunch of murdering psychopaths I wonder?

doctoremma · 25-11-2009 01:32PM

Funglegunk wrote: »

Doesn't say much for theistic morality does it? All the more frustrating when being accused of 'having no morals' because of a lack of belief in God. How do theists explain the fact that all atheists aren't a bunch of murdering psychopaths I wonder?

I have been informed that although I perceive my moral code to be inherent, it is actually dictated by the culture I grew up in, which is overwhelmingly christian. So apparently, we ARE observing the moral code set by god.

Goduznt Xzst · 25-11-2009 01:36PM

Funglegunk wrote: »

How do theists explain the fact that all atheists aren't a bunch of murdering psychopaths I wonder?

You are confusing subjective morality with the Christians professed Universal Objective Morality. It doesn't matter if you are an Atheist or Theist, if you are good in any form they view it as a proof of Gods existence. It isn't a question about subjective belief of God.

Liken it to a group of people that believe God holds you to the Earth, not gravity. Whether or not you believe in their God or dogmas, the very act of not floating off into space is enough proof to them that God is in fact, holding you by the heels and saving your life daily.

Sam Vimes · 25-11-2009 01:37PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I have been informed that although I perceive my moral code to be inherent, it is actually dictated by the culture I grew up in, which is overwhelmingly christian. So apparently, we ARE observing the moral code set by god.

That's not what I heard. I heard that god puts morality in our hearts which explains why non-believers don't go out and murder each other but leaves them in the awkward predicament that it would make religious morality pointless because we'd know it all already. So I think the position is that god put some level of morality in us inherently but that we need to top it up or something by referring to the bible

Funglegunk · 25-11-2009 01:43PM

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You are confusing subjective morality with the Christians professed Universal Objective Morality. It doesn't matter if you are an Atheist or Theist, if you are good in any form they view it as a proof of Gods existence. It isn't a question about subjective belief of God.

First homosexuals took the word 'gay', now Christians have the word 'good'. Is nothing sacred?

Any Christians here seriously believe Goduznt's paragraph is true btw?

Sam Vimes · 25-11-2009 01:46PM

Funglegunk wrote: »

First homosexuals took the word 'gay', now Christians have the word 'good'. Is nothing sacred?

Any Christians here seriously believe Goduznt's paragraph is true btw?

They do say all good comes from god. It's a pretty standard theist thing to thank god for everything good in the world and blame ourselves (or the fall specifically) for everything bad. That or the devil

scanlas · 25-11-2009 01:47PM

I hate any arugument that's based off of how people "feel" is right instead of what they rationally thought about the subject. I suspect most people who believe in God base if off "feeling" what's right and then rationalizing it to themselves and others.

Funglegunk · 25-11-2009 02:15PM

scanlas wrote: »

I suspect most people who believe in God base if off "feeling" what's right and then rationalizing it to themselves and others.

They don't really have a choice tbh. There's no real way to 'rationally' decide to believe in God, unless you think Pascal's Wager makes sense (it doesn't).

scanlas · 25-11-2009 05:07PM

Funglegunk wrote: »

They don't really have a choice tbh. There's no real way to 'rationally' decide to believe in God, unless you think Pascal's Wager makes sense (it doesn't).

Well I disagree, I have rationally decided that I don't believe a God exists by looking at evidence.

Flamed Diving · 25-11-2009 05:10PM

Pascal's wager assumes a God that is not omniscient. It's such a braindead argument.

Sam Vimes · 25-11-2009 05:21PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Pascal's wager assumes a God that is not omniscient. It's such a braindead argument.

It also assumes that there are only two options, belief and non-belief, when there are thousands of religions. It also assumes that belief is an act of will. You can pretend to believe something but if you don't believe it you don't believe it.

Pascal's wager fails on many levels

Turtwig · 25-11-2009 05:23PM

Is there any good theistic argument??

Flamed Diving · 25-11-2009 05:24PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Is there any good theistic argument??

Well, there just has to be a god, like!

Sam Vimes · 25-11-2009 05:30PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Is there any good theistic argument??

If there was, I'd be a theist

Funglegunk · 25-11-2009 06:21PM

scanlas wrote: »

Well I disagree, I have rationally decided that I don't believe a God exists by looking at evidence.

I meant that anybody who looks at the decision of whether or not to believe in God rationally will end up not believing. Theist belief is based on faith, not evidence.

Sam Vimes · 25-11-2009 07:21PM

We've covered most things thesits ever say so does anyone with too much time on their hands want to go through the thread and compile a list of them that we can link to whenever they're used :pac:

Flamed Diving · 25-11-2009 07:37PM

That would be you, Sam.

philologos · 25-11-2009 07:56PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We've covered most things thesits ever say so does anyone with too much time on their hands want to go through the thread and compile a list of them that we can link to whenever they're used :pac:

Were one to be that obnoxious in what is meant to be a frank and reasonable discussion, I don't think anyone would wish to participate!

Sam Vimes · 25-11-2009 08:19PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Were one to be that obnoxious in what is meant to be a frank and reasonable discussion, I don't think anyone would wish to participate!

The whole point of this thread is the arguments listed herein are neither frank nor reasonable

Although I do realise that if whenever these arguments were put forward we just pointed to the list instead of explaining why they're wrong for the millionth time, the theists would have very little left to say :pac:

Sam Vimes · 25-11-2009 08:20PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

That would be you, Sam.

I resent that :mad:

I'm just really really efficient :pac:

Flamed Diving · 25-11-2009 08:25PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm just really really efficient :pac:

No better man for the job then!

Sam Vimes · 25-11-2009 09:08PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No better man for the job then!

But....ummmm....ummmm...crap

Most annoying theist lines of argument?

Comments