Religious arguments and analogies that really bother you

[bigfield]

How many of those who do not 'use' the Gregorian calendar could honestly say they didn't know that the rest of the world - including Google and Facebook - thinks it's 2017

There are probably billions of people who don't know the Jesus myth.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is there any particular argument that you see being raised at times by theists and evangelists, that you find particularly disturbing and annoying?

Um, can I just put 'Self-Mutation' on that list?

 

[sdelsolray]

Is there any particular argument that you see being raised at times by theists and evangelists, that you find particularly disturbing and annoying?

Um, can I just put 'Self-Mutation' on that list?

Whatever happened to that guy? He generated some funny stuff.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Um, can I just put 'Self-Mutation' on that list?

Whatever happened to that guy? He generated some funny stuff.

He was banned.

 

[Malintent]

Agreed. GOTG is lame.
William Lane Craig deplores it and will never use it. Me either.

And you know what?
I think the number of 'gaps' is actually increasing rather than decreasing - thanks to science.

Yes, as it should. The more we learn, the more we understand how much more there is to potentially know. Where there was one massive gap in the past, new scientific information can fill in parts of that gap and leave us with ten slightly smaller gaps in place of it - or even ten massively larger gaps, since we didn't realize initially how huge that first gap actually was. Increases in knowledge bring with them complementary increases in seeing what else we have the potential to learn.

This is a positive of science, not a negative.

Ah yes.. how infinities can add up to a finite value... the infinite gaps...

It takes me 10 seconds to cross the room.
BUT FIRST, I must make it half-way across the room, which takes me 5 seconds.
OK, so 5 seconds later I am 5 seconds from the other end of the room
BUT WAIT! before I can make it the rest of the way across the room, I first have to make it halfway across that half of the room
2 1/2 seconds later, I am 3/4 of the way across the room.. BUT THERE IS MORE!
I need to make it halfway across that remainder... 1 1/4 seconds to go!

As you can see, I can INFINATELY divide the room (and time) in half! So, therefore, I can NEVER make it to the end of the room.
BUT YET I CAN make it to the end of the room in just 10 seconds..

So what gives? 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8..... + 1/n = 10

An infinite set equals a finite value!!!

This silly little mind game is what the god of the gaps is up to... while one can infinitely claim there is still "Half to go", that half that remains becomes infinitely irrelevant.

Therefore, our god of the gaps is irrelevant. THANKS TO SCIENCE

 

[Lion IRC]

Any of the 1001 variations on Pascal's Wager.

Since you decided to not believe, you could just as easily decide to believe just in case the Christians are right.

Yeah, right.

Pascals Wager isn't so much an apologetic argument as it is an appeal to reasonable, rational people that they should be open-minded and consider giving an idea the benefit of the doubt - since they don't know.

Of course, if an atheist thinks there is actual evidence against God - reasons not to believe - they should never 'pretend' to think otherwise. Pascal's Wager isn't about having an each-way bet or faking belief.

But presenting Pascal's Wager to closed-minded, strong atheists / anti-theists is pointless and I can see why such people would think it a stupid gambit.

 

[Lion IRC]

Malintent, I don't claim the gaps are some sort of Zenos Paradox gotcha.

I claim that for every one gap science tries to fill, it reveals two more in the process.
The horizon keeps on getting further and further away. That's not Zeno's Paradox.

Ancient caveman thought his forest was the 'universe'. But he climbs the tree and discovers a distant horizon. Then a mountain.

Then a telescope. Then a spaceship. Solar system becomes Galaxy. Galaxy becomes universe. Universe becomes multiverse. It's like God keeps moving the goal posts.

"Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Isaiah 29:14

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Malintent, I don't claim the gaps are some sort of Zenos Paradox gotcha.
I claim that for every one gap science tries to fill, it reveals two more in the process.
The horizon keeps on getting further and further away.
Ancient caveman thought his forest was the 'universe'. But he climbs the tree and discovers a distant horizon. Then a mountain. Then a telescope. Then a spaceship. Solar system becomes Galaxy. Galaxy becomes universe. Universe becomes multiverse. It's like God keeps moving the goal posts.

"Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Isaiah 29:14

It's not that the horizon gets further and further away, it's that the more we learn, the more we realize how far it was in the first place. The goalposts aren't moving, we just didn't have the information to realize how far away they always were. The galaxy and the universe were always there, but until we had the tools to look past the sky, we didn't have the ability to know that.

Revealing new gaps means that you're moving forward. It's the path of progress where you begin to see where you need to start to look next.

 

[Lion IRC]

I love science.
Especially, the way it 'corrects' its own mistakes.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I love science.
Especially, the way it 'corrects' its own mistakes.

You say that as a negative, but this is actually one of the best qualities of the scientific method and why it gives superior results in comparison to any other form of inquiry or information gathering. Knowledge should self-correct as a result of new information. We come to conclusions based on the best data available and when better data points out a previous flaw, we need to be able to accept that and move forward using the new data.

There's nothing wrong with coming to incorrect conclusions due to faulty or incomplete information. The only thing that's wrong is when people cling to those incorrect conclusions despite their flaws being known. It is, of course, understandable when people do that since it's easy for us to become emotionally invested in certain positions and we try to ignore or explain away those flaws, but eventually we need to join the rest of the world and move past these disproven conclusions.

 

[Lion IRC]

My main pet peeve is "you have to respect my beliefs". No, I don't. It annoys me because it's so stupid.

It either implies that reality itself and truth is dependent on our opinion of it. Ehe, no. Truth and reality just is. Or it implies that other people should stop thinking about stuff because I've stopped thinking about it. It's cool not to have the energy to argue about stuff. But the solution is to keep one's yap shut to begin with. Not to say something retarded and demand (based on nothing but your sensitive feelings) that it go unopposed.

Another similar one is"you should stop doing that because I find it offensive".
No, I shouldn't. I really shouldn't. This one is broken on every level.

Agreed!
And well-stated.
Christians cannot automatically expect a certain standard of behaviour from others just because they themselves ARE expected (mandated biblically) to adhere to a certain standard of behaviour.

And there's an obvious logical problem in asking everyone to respect everyone else's personal beliefs in the name of inclusiveness, post-modernism and tolerance uber alles? How can I respect their hate speech when they don't respect my hate speech?

- - - Updated - - -

I love science.
Especially, the way it 'corrects' its own mistakes.

You say that as a negative, but this is actually one of the best qualities of the scientific method and why it gives superior results in comparison to any other form of inquiry or information gathering. Knowledge should self-correct as a result of new information. We come to conclusions based on the best data available and when better data points out a previous flaw, we need to be able to accept that and move forward using the new data.

There's nothing wrong with coming to incorrect conclusions due to faulty or incomplete information. The only thing that's wrong is when people cling to those incorrect conclusions despite their flaws being known. It is, of course, understandable when people do that since it's easy for us to become emotionally invested in certain positions and we try to ignore or explain away those flaws, but eventually we need to join the rest of the world and move past these disproven conclusions.

You seem to have me pegged as anti-science. Why?

 

[Lion IRC]

70 bible translators meticulously retaining everything because unlike science they don't have the luxury of correcting awkward mistakes.

If Genesis was a science book written by scientists it would have been peer-reviewed and revised thousands of times over the years changing with each new discovery.

 

[Lion IRC]

...gotta keep these people happy, right?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/sci_list.html

 

[blastula]

70 bible translators meticulously retaining everything because unlike science they don't have the luxury of correcting awkward mistakes.

If Genesis was a science book written by scientists it would have been peer-reviewed and revised thousands of times over the years changing with each new discovery.

Yep, theists keep on repeating the same mistakes.

 

[bilby]

Agreed!
And well-stated.
Christians cannot automatically expect a certain standard of behaviour from others just because they themselves ARE expected (mandated biblically) to adhere to a certain standard of behaviour.

And there's an obvious logical problem in asking everyone to respect everyone else's personal beliefs in the name of inclusiveness, post-modernism and tolerance uber alles? How can I respect their hate speech when they don't respect my hate speech?

- - - Updated - - -

I love science.
Especially, the way it 'corrects' its own mistakes.

You say that as a negative, but this is actually one of the best qualities of the scientific method and why it gives superior results in comparison to any other form of inquiry or information gathering. Knowledge should self-correct as a result of new information. We come to conclusions based on the best data available and when better data points out a previous flaw, we need to be able to accept that and move forward using the new data.

There's nothing wrong with coming to incorrect conclusions due to faulty or incomplete information. The only thing that's wrong is when people cling to those incorrect conclusions despite their flaws being known. It is, of course, understandable when people do that since it's easy for us to become emotionally invested in certain positions and we try to ignore or explain away those flaws, but eventually we need to join the rest of the world and move past these disproven conclusions.

You seem to have me pegged as anti-science. Why?

I expect it's because he is both willing and able to read the things you post.

 

[Lion IRC]

Being anti-atheism isn't the same as being anti-science.
But I understand why your thinking is biased toward that mistaken view.

 

[bilby]

Being anti-atheism isn't the same as being anti-science.
But I understand why your thinking is biased toward that mistaken view.

Being anti-atheism is, in fact, being anti-science. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; Science is a methodology that requires the rejection of a priori assumptions and beliefs. Opposing the lack of belief in anything is an inherently anti-science position.

And I can see why you don't understand that you are anti-science - your epistemology is deeply flawed, and leads you to a number of false conclusions, one of which is that your epistemology is not deeply flawed. You give every indication that you don't understand what science even IS, much less apply it to reach a better understanding of reality.

 

[Elixir]

Being anti-atheism isn't the same as being anti-science.
But I understand why your thinking is biased toward that mistaken view.

Being anti-atheism is, in fact, being anti-science. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods; Science is a methodology that requires the rejection of a priori assumptions and beliefs. Opposing the lack of belief in anything is an inherently anti-science position.

And I can see why you don't understand that you are anti-science - your epistemology is deeply flawed, and leads you to a number of false conclusions, one of which is that your epistemology is not deeply flawed. You give every indication that you don't understand what science even IS, much less apply it to reach a better understanding of reality.

Beautifully said. I've seen that same thought expressed a thousand times, but perhps never so clearly. A three year old of average intelligence should be able to get it.
But I'd like to see- just ONCE - such an explanation offered, and the person being addressed say "Oh! In that case, fuck that shit my parents forced me to believe!"
Never happens. They predictably revert to the proscribed indulgence in flawed epistomology.

 

[Lion IRC]

If atheism is merely the lack of belief in God(s) then theism is simply the lack of belief that God is imaginary.

Happy now? We both "lack" belief.


I lack the belief that Jesus was a myth.

I lack the belief that God is an invention.

I lack the belief that things like universes spontaneously pop into existence for no reason.

I lack belief in a ton of things. I'm a non-atheist.

 

[bilby]

If atheism is merely the lack of belief in God(s) then theism is the lack of belief that God isn't real.

Theism is the existence of a belief in a god or gods; But no theist is a generalist - theists are (in my experience) invariably believers in a specific god or pantheon.

Happy now? We both "lack" belief.

No; You lack belief in 4,999 out of 5,000 or so gods so far invented by humanity; But you still have belief in the remaining one.

I lack the belief that Jesus was a myth.

As do I. I conclude that Jesus was a myth; I don't believe it as a starting point.

I lack the belief that God is an invention.

As do I. I conclude that gods are invented; I don't believe it as a starting point.

I lack the belief that things like universes spontaneously pop into existence for no reason.

As do I; It is quite possible that they are eternal, and almost certain that, if they are not, there is some unknown reason for them to pop into existence. But it is also possible that universes spontaneously pop into existence for no reason. Perhaps one day we will find out which of these is the case. Until we find an answer, it is not reasonable to assume that a god or gods (or anything else) are involved. To make such an assumption would be anti-scientific.

I lack belief in a ton of things. I'm a non-atheist.

Everyone lacks belief in a ton of things. To be a scientist, you need to lack belief in ALL of them.

Bald is not a hair colour. As a blonde, one cannot reasonably say "I am neither a brunette nor a redhead, therefore I am bald".