Atheistforums.com

Here is a blog post on the above subject: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8854

Do you agree or disagree that this is the way to defeat all religious arguments? It seems convincing to me.

If you could reason with theists they wouldn't be theists. Everything they believe about their religion is based on magical thinking and ignorance. It's like arguing with a small child that believes in Santa, or his imaginary friend that brings comfort.
It's kind of cruel, in a way, to argue with theist and make them feel uncomfortable. We are better than that---aren't we?  :angel: :naughty: :smile2:

Best way to defeat their arguments is to not bother arguing..  Piss off works better.

In order to defeat an argument, it has to be an argument to begin with. Food for thought.

Sent from your mom

Quote from: 12Monkeys on July 06, 2014, 08:50:23 AM
Here is a blog post on the above subject: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8854

Do you agree or disagree that this is the way to defeat all religious arguments? It seems convincing to me.

I think any argument not rooted in fantasy or superstition is a good argument.

-Nam

Quote from: PickelledEggs on July 06, 2014, 05:19:35 PM
In order to defeat an argument, it has to be an argument to begin with. Food for thought.

Sent from your mom

A one sided argument where the other party doesn't participate is basically jerking off.

There are many tools in my toolbox, and you're not going to convince a dyed-in-the-wool theist to admit they're wrong. You can, however, make them look extremely foolish. This tactic is but one of many.

(http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/DrDI6aD4cy4/maxresdefault.jpg)

Is the best counter I have found so far

It seems really convincing to me as well but really I think it's a lot simpler than all that. It's not our job to disprove the existence of their arguments. The theists are the one asserting that these fairly tales exist. The burden of proof is on them, not us. They need to offer up the proof rather than shifting the burden on to us (proving a negative is impossible anyway). The other members are also right that reasoning with these people is impossible. We shouldn't be acting like this nonsense deserves a response.

Shooting 'em works best. Not only does it defeat their argument, they don't make any others.

 :eek: The most expedient and easy answer isn't always the right response, even if it does solves the problem---or is it?  :axe:

Quote from: Solitary on July 06, 2014, 02:55:47 PM
If you could reason with theists they wouldn't be theists. Everything they believe about their religion is based on magical thinking and ignorance. It's like arguing with a small child that believes in Santa, or his imaginary friend that brings comfort.
It's kind of cruel, in a way, to argue with theist and make them feel uncomfortable. We are better than that---aren't we?  :angel: :naughty: :smile2:

Making someone believe that hell almost certainly doesn't exist is a good thing for most.

Here's the TL:DR version of the article in the op.
Saying "god did it" or "god is the source" has no explanatory power whatsoever.

 William Lane Craig defending a mind without a brain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0oWVxpTWxg

Quote from: Solitary on July 06, 2014, 02:55:47 PM
If you could reason with theists they wouldn't be theists. Everything they believe about their religion is based on magical thinking and ignorance. It's like arguing with a small child that believes in Santa, or his imaginary friend that brings comfort.
It's kind of cruel, in a way, to argue with theist and make them feel uncomfortable. We are better than that---aren't we?  :angel: :naughty: :smile2:

Agreed. To theists, they have this preposterous idea that what is comforting is what should be and what is believed. However, there is a big difference between what is comforting and what is the truth. Believing in something only because it comforts you is a blind and weak approach to life. Believing in Heaven because it comforts you and it doesn't have any evidence to back it up is a blind and weak approach to life. Hell is actually an exception here, though. Hell is a place of hell fire and torment, but the same religion that reinforces your belief in Heaven also threatens you with eternal damnation to a lake of fire, so obviously you will do whatever your religion says in order to escape. Those are three key components to religious belief. Indoctrination, fear, and emotional delusion(comforting fantasies).

Most atheists used to be theists/Christians/Muslim so they are capable of changing their minds.

Quote from: 12Monkeys on July 12, 2014, 03:34:45 PM
Most atheists used to be theists/Christians/Muslim so they are capable of changing their minds.

12Monkeys, as websites like this have shown...not so easy when we have the Fundy nuts running the show.

-Nam

Sometimes I think that at least some of the nuts don't really believe what they teach. They just do it for the money. I mean they've had so much time to see why atheism is true that they must of come to the conclusion that it's true. Others may actually be nuts but they just don't understand atheism yet, the arguments for and against I mean.

Quote from: 12Monkeys on July 13, 2014, 10:31:54 AM
Sometimes I think that at least some of the nuts don't really believe what they teach. They just do it for the money. I mean they've had so much time to see why atheism is true that they must of come to the conclusion that it's true. Others may actually be nuts but they just don't understand atheism yet, the arguments for and against I mean.

I have long experience with xtians and mormons. In both camps you have people who don't truly believe and yet live the religion and also true believers who are never going to change their beliefs. The best examples I could give you of those who do leave would be to go to an ex-Mormon website and read about people's journey out. Almost every one involved a "crisis point" that brought the religion into question, followed by a course of study and questioning, disillusionment and then finally the need to act on it and leave.

There are a number of cynical Christians and Mormons who are die hard believers out front and non believers in reality. I knew at least 2 pastors who used their position for personal gain. And after I left Mormonism, one former Bishop who told me he hadn't believed for years, it was simply easier to go with the flow. But up front, people who are going to challenge their beliefs have to have a reason to do so or else a questioning mind to begin with. In my case, both.

It is easy to defeat all religious arguments with rational thinking, because religious beliefs spring from emotions, not reason.

This is why I think the author of the article makes the same mistake as the one he is trying to correct. He, just like the new atheists he is saying have it wrong is focusing on the lack of reason that goes into religious thinking. Yah, we already know that.

I also didn't like the way he took just two arguments made by the new atheists and then proclaimed they have it all wrong. Parts of those books covered the same arguments he's made plus many more.

Quote from: 12Monkeys on July 13, 2014, 10:31:54 AM
Sometimes I think that at least some of the nuts don't really believe what they teach. They just do it for the money. I mean they've had so much time to see why atheism is true that they must of come to the conclusion that it's true. Others may actually be nuts but they just don't understand atheism yet, the arguments for and against I mean.

Then it's atheists swindling people.

-Nam

Quote from: Berati on July 13, 2014, 11:35:44 AM
It is easy to defeat all religious arguments with rational thinking, because religious beliefs spring from emotions, not reason.

This is why I think the author of the article makes the same mistake as the one he is trying to correct. He, just like the new atheists he is saying have it wrong is focusing on the lack of reason that goes into religious thinking. Yah, we already know that.

I also didn't like the way he took just two arguments made by the new atheists and then proclaimed they have it all wrong. Parts of those books covered the same arguments he's made plus many more.

I think that the author Luke Muehlhauser has come up with one of the best attempts at beating all arguments for God that I've ever seen. Actually can anyone point to a better way of beating e.g. the Kalam or the fine tuning arguments?

Nam -- yep, not all atheists are good people obviously.

 I Agree that the mission of paul was far different than the mission of Jesus and some of his teachings were the opposite.   When bible thumpers want to criticize and judge people they usually quote Paul.

You would know!  :lol: Solitary

I don't think there is any convincing argument to be presented to the true theist.  After all, their beliefs are not based on reason, but on emotion. Case in point, my daughter, who recently was born again, was having a rough time in her life with work, marriage, etc. to the point of considering running away from it all. Then after she became a devout theist, she feels much better. When I confronted her, she said that she is happier - her life has meaning and she appreciates what she has. So, call it a crutch or a tool, but the religion is working for her.  I'm happier just to leave her in her blissful ignorance, as long as she doesn't proselytize to me. So, I generally leave most of my religious friends alone, unless they chose to open the topic. Then it's no holds barred!

Quote from: RichTC on July 21, 2014, 08:30:56 AM
I don't think there is any convincing argument to be presented to the true theist.  After all, their beliefs are not based on reason, but on emotion. Case in point, my daughter, who recently was born again, was having a rough time in her life with work, marriage, etc. to the point of considering running away from it all. Then after she became a devout theist, she feels much better. When I confronted her, she said that she is happier - her life has meaning and she appreciates what she has. So, call it a crutch or a tool, but the religion is working for her.  I'm happier just to leave her in her blissful ignorance, as long as she doesn't proselytize to me. So, I generally leave most of my religious friends alone, unless they chose to open the topic. Then it's no holds barred!r

I take that approach as well. If somebody is a happy Atheist and they would be a miserable Catholic, then I wouldn't want them to become Catholic because I'd rather people would not embrace beliefs or Dogma that makes them miserable.

Quote from: RichTC on July 21, 2014, 08:30:56 AM
I don't think there is any convincing argument to be presented to the true theist.  After all, their beliefs are not based on reason, but on emotion. Case in point, my daughter, who recently was born again, was having a rough time in her life with work, marriage, etc. to the point of considering running away from it all. Then after she became a devout theist, she feels much better. When I confronted her, she said that she is happier - her life has meaning and she appreciates what she has. So, call it a crutch or a tool, but the religion is working for her.  I'm happier just to leave her in her blissful ignorance, as long as she doesn't proselytize to me. So, I generally leave most of my religious friends alone, unless they chose to open the topic. Then it's no holds barred!

In those circumstances where people have life problems and need a place to "escape" to, religion is the default choice because it is everywhere and continually touted as the solution.  Belief in something beyond your ability to correct, a higher power, that can serve as a place of ultimate rescue. But substitute something else, belief in a middle Earth or Harry Potter universe to escape to is considered as a psychosis or a mental defect, but in reality there is no difference.

And it always comes back to belief, and what you are willing to accept by faith.

A theist has responded to Luke's arguments here: http://josiahconcept.org/2014/01/30/defeating-religion-in-one-easy-step-part-1/

Quote from: Solitary on July 06, 2014, 02:55:47 PM
If you could reason with theists they wouldn't be theists.

I disagree with this.

I was a theist, and I was reasoned out of my belief. I'll bet quite a few on this forum were reasoned out of their beliefs.

Matt Dilahunty, Dan Barker (ex-pastor), Theresa McBain (ex-pastor), Jerry Dewitt (ex-pastor), Hector Avalos (ex-Penticost preacher), Micheal Shermer, all former believers, now atheists, reasoned out of their theistic beliefs.

Not all theists are the wackos we get here.

I should probably mention that I’m an atheist. That doesn’t mean I think I can disprove God I just think that God almost certainly doesn’t exist. Why? No evidence (as far as I’m aware.)
“1.God answers prayer.
2.God obscures himself from the intellectual elite.”
How do you know God answers prayers? Can you point me towards some evidence of this? You’ll no doubt recall that one experiment where praying for the sick failed to show any positive results. I can try to get you a link if you haven’t read about it.
Why would God obscure himself from anyone? Why does God remain hidden from us (if he exists)?
“I propose that we would expect direct tests or experiments to fail every single time.”
That would mean that we can’t find any experimental evidence of God.
“I would further propose that genuine appeals have a much higher likelihood of an affirmative reply.”
Has prayer ever worked?
“in which it appears heartfelt prayers actually saved a little girl from dying of rabies”
I’m guessing that it was her immune system saved her, but then how do we even know the story of this little girl is true? How could we ever find out?
“Score one for a testable prediction!”
I agree with you that God is testable and that Luke is wrong on that one.



“I would submit that knowledge is the pure information, and that is something that can’t be reduced to a physical entity (such as a branch of a neuron in the human brain).”
As far as I’m aware neuroscientists would disagree. Intelligence, knowledge all come from the brain.
  “This means that God need not possess a physical brain to have knowledge.”
From my naïve novice level understanding of neuroscience I would have to disagree.
“What all of this boils down to is a presumption of materialism.  But if one rejects materialism (as most Christian theists do), then this plank is question-begging.”
But there is good evidence of materialism. Look at the physical world around us, look at us. What is the evidence of God? What is the evidence for the sole? How can something be intelligent but not have a brain?

“God creating the universe is the simplest explanation, even if God is a complex entity.”
Energy, a multiverse of Big Bangs or something being created from nothing are all simpler explanations. Basically anything naturalistic. They don’t require naturalism plus intelligence. Naturalism alone does it as is the case for say evolution by natural selection. The human brain was created via this process no God required. Having said that I don’t see why complex explanation are inferior, as in your examples the more complex is actually better. I just think that perhaps (not sure) more often than not the best explanation is simpler. Also I’m glad you agree that tornados don’t require an intelligence. They happen naturalistically.

“Why does a universe that is designed be necessarily free of “bad design”?  “
Why would an all-loving God create bad design like the blind spot in the human eye? We eat and breath through the same tube, that’s another example of bad design. Then there’s examples like babies being born with cancer. Why would good God do this?

When it comes to the resurrection and returning of Jesus to heaven these are my thoughts:

Jesus dies. By dead we mean 100% dead. So he is as dead as someone who has had their head chopped off and you leave them there for two weeks to make sure. That's what I mean by dead.

But Jesus then comes back to life from the dead. This is the same as the head coming back on the beheaded body then coming back to life.

Secondly he flew to heaven bodily like Superman.

I've never seen any evidence that either of these things are possible so I don't believe that they are likely to be true. What evidence can you present to show that either of these things are possible? If you say the bible how do you know that these claims weren't made up?
I should also add that as far as I’m aware it isn’t physically possible for humans to die and come back to life and to fly (say without wings.)

see this time and time again with theists and even agnostics (I don't necessarily blame them.) There is only one reason atheists are atheists like myself. The reason that I'm an atheist is because there is no evidence for God as far as I can tell. That's it. I was once confused by this and I think many Christians and theists are too. If someone could show evidence of God I would be a theist. Next show evidence for Christianity/Islam/Hinduism and I will become which ever religion I think is true.

There is only one good atheist argument and that's it.

“One of the most frequent statements I hear when I talk about God with atheists is that there is “no evidence” that God exists”
You misunderstand the word atheism as used by say Richard Dawkins. We atheists are actually agnostic atheists. We say we don’t know if there is a God or not but there probably/almost certainly isn’t. We are not 100% sure that there is no God.
Please show me your evidence of God, that’s all I need to see.

Quote from: Simon Moon on August 01, 2014, 02:27:39 PM
I disagree with this.

I was a theist, and I was reasoned out of my belief. I'll bet quite a few on this forum were reasoned out of their beliefs.

Matt Dilahunty, Dan Barker (ex-pastor), Theresa McBain (ex-pastor), Jerry Dewitt (ex-pastor), Hector Avalos (ex-Penticost preacher), Micheal Shermer, all former believers, now atheists, reasoned out of their theistic beliefs.

Not all theists are the wackos we get here.

Agreed. I studied my way out of Mormonism with no real assistance other than what I discovered by myself, but I had some research skills to start with. Critical thinking is not limited to atheists, and as previously mentioned, the majority of atheists came out of religion.