Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't think you understand theory in the context of science.
A theory is attempt to describe and explain the mechanisms of some set of observations of the natural world. Either it applies to these observations or it doesn't. Before the experiments are performed the theory is "subjective" if the tests are successful then the theory is "objective".
Newtons's theory is the actual law of Gravity when describing the observations that relate to movement of planets, the speed at which objects fall etc.

Don't worry, I am well acquainted with the meaning of the word theory in science.

The issue is with regard to the meaning of the words Subjective and Objective


The rationalisation of anything in language, measurements, etc. are, by definition, subjective, as they are dependent on the mind for existence.


A person may have a different interpretation of the above words, but if they do, then they are not talking about subjectivity and objectivity, they are talking about something else.

mangaroosh wrote: »

That is the logical consequence of fallible senses.

No it's not a logical conclusion. Our senses are not perfect, they are fallible. Our brains that process the signals from those senses are not perfect, they are also fallible. And no matter how much you like to think otherwise, your unconscious and conscious minds that interpret those processed signals are not perfect, they are also fallible. These are indisputable facts

But despite this we have gone from living in caves to landing on the moon because the scientific method does everything it can to overcome the problem of fallible senses. It doesn't always succeed but it succeeds enough to show that it doesn't work the way you think it does. It works because people come up with ideas and then they test them to see if they are accurate. They don't just rely on their personal interpretation of what they think should work, they use their fallible senses and fallible brains to come up with the best theory they can and then see if it's accurate, knowing full well it might not be, because they are fallible

Every single man made object you have ever seen proves you wrong here, about the "logical conclusion" of fallible senses and about how science works

mangaroosh wrote: »

All the major religions prescribe a particular path to experiencing God. Of course, just as with sicence, if the directions are not followed closely, then the outcome of the "experiment" is likely to be different on each occasion.

And in many cases a scientist can tell you what's actually happening when they think they're experiencing god, eg native American tribes who take hallucinogenic drugs.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Of course all of that is immaterial, because any claim about God is by its very nature subjective

The thing is that if god actually existed I don't think that would be the case. The reason people only ever have personal experiences is it's all in their head

mangaroosh wrote: »

"tacit knowledge" is very real, and although some may not be familiar with it, that does not affect its validity. Perhaps furhter investigation into the concept may prove fruitful.

There really isn't anything you can say that will make me view "tacit knowledge" as anything other than your attempt to say "I don't need evidence because I'm great at interpreting things"

mangaroosh wrote: »

It reamains, that a metre, and therefore kilometer, is a completely fabricated concept. It is an idea, that does not exist in reality. Yes, it has been adopted by consensus as a standardizes unit of measurement, but nonetheless it remains an idea, completely dependent on the mind for existence, and therefore, by definition entirely subjective.

What do you mean by subjective? I use it to mean open to personal opinion, which a kilometre is not, it's a standard measurement and anyone who says it's a different length is wrong

There is also the definition of dependent on the mind for existence, which a kilometre does match, it's just an idea that humans made up and collectively decided on and I think that pretty accurately describes god too

mangaroosh wrote: »

Thoughts do not exist in reality,

Um, yes they do do you think that some magical metaphysical thing happens every time you have a thought? A thought is an interpretation of an electrical signal

mangaroosh wrote: »

This is why experience is necessary, so that the description can be verified, as it is only through a common experience, that two people can share knowledge.

It's only through personal experience that two people can share a personal experience but personal experience =/= knowledge
Personally experiencing something means you don't have to take someone's word for it anymore but you could still both have misinterpreted the experience. If you have evidence you decrease the chances that you have and if anyone can, with extreme reliability*, be made to have the same experience you decrease the chances further but you can never be so sure that there is no possibility that you are wrong

*while always being aware of confirmation bias, the tendency to remember the hits and forget the misses

mangaroosh wrote:

Evidence does not add to the likelihood that a claim/hypothesis is true or not.
Evidence adds to our ability to verify a claim/hypothesis.

Naz_st wrote: »

They're the same thing.

Nice logic. Explain why they are the same.

mangaroosh wrote:

They are two entirely different things, again, this is basic logic.

Naz_st wrote: »

No, it's not basic logic, it's basically wrong.

again, nice attempt at logic. Explain how/why.

Naz_st wrote: »

Do you even read what you write? "50% probability assigned to the claim" is the same as "50% chance the claim is correct".

indeed, that is just tautology, but of course that was not what was said.

if nothing is known then there can be no probability, as probabiliy is the attempt to predict an outcome based on what is actually known.

The knowledge upon which the prediction is based is distinct from what is actually being predicted.

Naz_st wrote: »

Ok, well let's imagine a real-world scenario and apply your absolutist logic to it and see how far it gets us shall we?

Setting: Courtroom

Judge: Ladies and gentlemen, we have a serious crime here of murder and it’s up to you 12 jurors to decide the fate of the defendant. Counsel, please proceed.

Prosecutor: He did it.

Judge: thank-you counsel. Now, the defence please?

Defence attorney: He didn't do it. The defence rests.

Judge: Thank-you. Jury, have you reached a verdict?

Juror #1 (timidly): Eh, shouldn't we, like, hear some evidence first?

Judge (scoffing): Evidence? Don't be silly - evidence has no bearing on truth! I mean, sure, there may be CCTV footage of the defendant shooting the victim, and yes, the defendants fingerprints were all over the crime scene in the victim’s blood, and yes the bullets recovered from the victim do match the gun registered to the defendant, found in his home, covered with both the victim's blood and the defendant’s fingerprints, and yes the victims heart was found in the defendant’s freezer, but really - none of this evidence has any bearing on the actual truth of whether he killed the victim or not.

Seem ok to you?

Nice example. One question, is this evidence known or unknown?

Another real world example is where a jury convicts the wrong person based on evidence. This does not make the person who did not mean that the non-killer is the killer.

Naz_st wrote: »

In the real non-boolean world of complex, open systems, there is no absolute knowledge of truth (that's more the position of religions that have an omniscient deity as the arbiter of truth). Therefore ALL truth claims are subject to probability - there are no certainties. This is why each piece of evidence for something adds to the PROBABILITY of it being true.

Look at it from a mathematical perspective: True = 1, false = 0. Probability represents the gradient in between. Let's assume every truth claim has a probability of 0 to begin with (false until shown otherwise). How do you move something from false (0) to true (1) in the absence of absolute knowledge (i.e. without conveniently knowing for certain the answer in advance)? Happily, the Bayesian theorem can show how evidence can be used to move truth claims from 0 to 1 in the real world.

Again, is this evidence known or unknown?

Naz_st wrote: »

In the example I gave of the red balls and green balls (and if it makes it easier to grasp, assume no one, including me, has knowledge of the choice that was made at the start - a random number generator kicked it off for example), at the point in time when I had drawn 50 red balls, the probability of the bag NOT containing all red balls is (1 / 100891344545564193334812497256), which is roughly the same chance of winning the Euromillions 4 times in a row (So, pretty small then!). We got to this level of certainty by assessing the evidence.

is the number of balls in the bag known? Is it known that 50 balls have been drawn?

Naz_st wrote: »

What? Did you read the wiki entry? Bayesian theory is a mathematical field specifically concerned with assessing truth probability based on evidence. IT’S IN BLACK AND WHITE.

Excellent. the statements being made however, are not the Bayesian theory though, regardless of how similar they are.

Naz_st wrote: »

So you're saying that gravity worked differently before humans were around to describe it?

Re-read what was actually said, and it should become clear that that was not what was said at all.

Naz_st wrote: »

The "force of gravity" is what is described by Newton's theory. You're arguing that his theory is subjective, but his theory is also objective.

Again, a description of something is not the thing itself. Again, very basic logic

Naz_st wrote: »

Or are you just saying that "things fall down" is objective. Because, while accurate, it's not very useful.

Again, re-read what was actually said, as opposed a subjective interpretation of what was said.

Naz_st wrote: »

In this thread, your “application of logic” has led you to the following conclusions:
“Something is either true or false”
“Everything about the universe is subjective because humans describe it. If we didn’t exist the universe would be a crazy place of random physical forces”
“Things fall down”

I’m blown away by your powers of reasoning! :rolleyes:

Incorrect, that was your application of logic, that led you to those conclusions.

Naz_st wrote: »

LOL. Ok Spock, but what you misinterpret as a rant is merely a modicum of the frustration of responding repeatedly to the same (very lengthy) posts again and again that seem to be based on weird semantics and completely unrelated to reality.

(Though I agree, it was fun )

Indeed, use of a dictionary may be considered "wierd semantics" "in this day and age", but it is a practice that could prove very beneficial to eliminating misunderstandings.

Visions at Knock 2009.
Christian sees Mary. Atheist sees the sun.
Proof human senses are subjective.

rohatch wrote: »

looks like we have another jackass

thanks for announcing yourself

rohatch wrote: »

This forum is for people who believe religion, god, jesus and the bible is a load of Bull 5hit.

Any point made by theists has already been disproved here. Read the bible threads.

God is not religion, nor any of the interpretations of God. God is distinct from all of those. Disproving a religious claim does not disprove God, it disproves that particular claim about God.

This is how the issue of personal experience came up, and to avoid re-hashing the last few pages, it may be more beneficial to read them.

rohatch wrote: »

Well lets do an experiment then.

Leave all children completely free of religion until they are 21 years of age.

Interesting proposal. I look forward to seeing the results, although the point was that religion, being an inanimate concept, and not capable of action is not responsible for "childhood indoctrination", but rather "indoctrination" is a societal issue that every member of a society is subjected to. If one type of "childhood indoctrination" is to be eradicated then why not all of them, when each is as manipulative as the other, and perhaps equally as dangerous. Unless the issue is a personal dislike of religion as opposed to a correction of the wider problem.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Do you actually think that when people talk about religious indoctrination they're talking about the concept of religion floating around indoctrinating children rather than religious people

Nope, but it would appear that some are ignorant to the fact that indoctrination is a societal phenomenon, as opposed to a religious one. Indoctrination begins from the time of birth, whether religious or not. To single religion out as the sole, or even the worst transgressor, would make it apear that it is done so solely on the basis of personal dislike for religion, and not against the concept of "childhood indoctrination". This would make it seem that some forms of "childhood indoctrination" is perfectly acceptable, so long as it is in accordance with what a select group believe.

Of course, the various forms of indoctrination may not be recognised, which could be another reason.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

I think you need to make a distinction between 'indoctrination' and 'education'.

Ah yeah I know the distinction but I don't think mangaroosh is making it

mangaroosh wrote: »

to highlight the absurdity of what is often claimed. It was meant as part of the broader point as dealt with below.

But no one ever claimed that. Trying to highlight something by claiming people said things they didn't is called strawmanning

mangaroosh wrote: »

That is fair enough with regard to the likes of history, science, etc., but indoctrination occurs on other levels too, that we are never taught to question, and that can have a deep effect on the psyche. The idea of nationality, culture and social identity, are ideas that we are indoctrinated into without any sort of questioning, at any level.

Theses ideas are defended just as dogmatically, if not more so, than religious ideals, and often much more violently. The idea of nationalism and culture, is entirely based on a non-existent entity, that appears to have much evidence to support its existence, however, when examined, it becomes clear that countries amount to little mroe than a shared belief in somehting that ultimately does not exist, but something that is defended with such vigor that it discourages people from ever questioning it.

I wholeheartedly agree. I oppose the concept of nationalism too. To quote GB Shaw: "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But no one ever claimed that. Trying to highlight something by claiming people said things they didn't is called strawmanning

I don't necessarily believe that people think that an inanimate concept is responsible for indoctrination, but the points put forward sometimes betray a blurring of the issue, where religion is denigrated for the reason of "childhood indoctrination".

The problem of course is not religion, as mentioned, it is some religious people. Therefore attacking religion on this basis is somewhat misguided, as the problem of indoctrination is a societal issue and not specifically a religious one. The people who indoctrinate others into religion, have themselves been subject to indoctrination into a specific culture, and this behaviour is learned and carried forward.

In singling out religion, it is often ignored, that religion and religious people are not the problem, rather society is, of which we are all a part, and which we all contribute to. And, the degree to which any form of delusion is deemed acceptable, then all forms are.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree. I oppose the concept of nationalism too. To quote GB Shaw: "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"

I would be largely in agreement with the above, but would extend it further, beyond the concept of patriotism, as patriotism is just a degree of delusion, but where any degree of delusion is accepted, then extremism is likely to be found.

If the issue is indoctrinating people to believe in things that do not exist in reality, things that are merely a figment of the imagination, then the idea of separate countries, independent nations, money, etc. all need to be done away with, for so long as one form of delusion is deemed acceptible, then all are.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think that's just semantics tbh. Of course when people talk about religious indoctrination they neither mean the concept of religion is doing it nor that every single person who believes in god is doing it. But the fact that not every religious person is doing it does not mean people aren't allowed complain about the ones that are

to a certain extent is probably is semantics, however, the issue is all to often generalised and the underlying issues missed, namely that indoctrination is a religious issue rather than a societal one.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's what's called a slippery slope fallacy. And one man's delusion is another man's opinion. For example I consider your views about personal experience to be delusional. The world would be a truly
awful place if everything one particular guy considered delusional was banned

It's not necessarily a slippery slope fallacy, as the proposal was not that once one delusion was done away with, that all the rest would follow, rather the logical consequence that if one delusion is deemed unacceptable on the basis that it is a delusion, then all delusions must be deemed unacceptable on the same grounds.

This may or may not happen of course, but the ruling that one delusion is acceptable while another is not is irrational.


Indeed, you are prefectly entitled to deem my views as delusional, but that does not make them so, and the question of true understanding may be raised. One way in which to dispell delusions is of course to try and bring them to the light of truth.

In fact, the discussion of other delusions, the belief in something that does not actually exist, may be somewhat beneficial as "an explanatory crane" when discussing the idea of God and evidence.