Religious arguments and analogies that really bother you

[OLDMAN]

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.

The difference is "You lack belief in certain characteristics or attributes of the imagined deities, not the deities themselves."

 

[Lion IRC]

No, I lack belief in the theory - your theory - that God isn't real.
It's merely a lack of the belief held by atheists.

Now, if atheism isn't a belief then it presumably is must have some evidentiary warrant.

Wanna proselytise me with respect to your beliefs about God(s)?

 

[Lion IRC]

So many non-stamp collectors wanting to talk about stamps.
Hmmm?

 

[bilby]

No, I lack belief in the theory - your theory - that God isn't real.
It's merely a lack of the belief held by atheists.

Now, if atheism isn't a belief then it presumably is must have some evidentiary warrant.

Wanna proselytise me with respect to your beliefs about God(s)?

So, your argument that you are not anti-science consists of demonstrating that you don't know what a theory is, don't understand what 'belief' means, and cannot grasp that, when you go to a freethought forum to express the opposing viewpoint, rebuttal of your position by those present doesn't meet the definition of 'proselytizing'.

It seems to me that if your methodology for demonstrating your ability to understand the universe is based on demonstrating that you are not even equipped to have a rational discussion, that you are likely doomed to fail.

 

[bilby]

So many non-stamp collectors wanting to talk about stamps.
Hmmm?

When every single day, the stamp collectors insist that every aspect of life be made about stamps, it is not an interest in stamps that leads people to say 'Shut the fuck up about your stupid stamps for fucks sake!'

Saying "A-ha! So you DO want to talk about stamps - look, you said 'Stamps' right there!" just makes it even more clear that you are being a total dick about your stupid stamps.

 

[sdelsolray]

So many non-stamp collectors wanting to talk about stamps.
Hmmm?

I can talk about stamps without collecting them. So can you, or anybody else.

However, some are addicted to and infected with the collection of stamps.

Analogies go only so far.

 

[sdelsolray]

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

Too bad your religion does not correct its mistakes.

 

[atrib]

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.

Are you trying to be clever? If so, you are not succeeding.

You hold an explicit set of beliefs based on what you you have read in the Bible, and you make the positive claim that Biblegod is real. You (and other Christians like you) believe, and claim, that a supernatural creature created this universe and then sent its clone to Earth to tell us about it. The clone was then brutally killed so this creature's blood-lust could be appeased and it could forgive humans for their transgressions of a set of arbitrary laws it had established for human conduct. The clone was then raised from the dead and transported out of this universe using technology that would appear to be magical even to modern humans. You explicitly believe these things and claim these events were real because someone made these claims in an old book.

On the other hand, atheists reject the supernatural claims of the Bible because none of the claims can be verified, and Biblegod cannot be bothered to show up and demonstrate its presence. You likely do the same, i.e. reject supernatural claims made by other religious books and people. In other words, you lack the belief that Allah, Vishnu or Thor or any of the thousands of other gods are real. The big difference between you and the typical atheist is that the atheist lacks belief in all gods, while you lack belief in all gods but your preferred god, and make the positive claim that your Biblegod exists.

If you want to claim that your Biblegod is real, and you want your claim to be considered seriously, it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support your claim. Until then, your claim is just like any other positive claim regarding the existence of supernatural creatures, unverifiable and not falsifiable, and consequently, not worthy of serious consideration. Atheists would not exist if there were no claims about the existence of gods. Just as abantuists do not exist because no one claims that the universe was created by Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad. I am sure you understand the difference, and just pretend to be obtuse to avoid the burden of proof that is required of you.

 

[atrib]

No, I lack belief in the theory - your theory - that God isn't real.
It's merely a lack of the belief held by atheists.

Now, if atheism isn't a belief then it presumably is must have some evidentiary warrant.

Wanna proselytise me with respect to your beliefs about God(s)?

Atheism is not a theory. It is a lack of belief in the credibility of your god claims, based on the very real lack of evidence for said claims. You lack a belief in Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad, because there is no evidence to support the claim that Bantu is real. You don't need to support your lack of belief in Bantu with evidence, because it is incumbent upon the Bantuist to provide evidence of its existence. Are you really so dense that you are unable to understand this concept?

 

[atrib]

So many non-stamp collectors wanting to talk about stamps.
Hmmm?

If the world was dominated by people who collected stamps and believed that their stamps possessed magical properties, and that non-stamp collectors were going to hell, you would be talking about stamp collectors too. Are you really so dense that you do not understand this?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Are you really so dense that you do not understand this?

I think he thinks he's scoring points, rather than just looking like another dense online apologist in over his head.

And to be fair, it's at least a little better than his attempts to 'turn it around' which just come out as a prolix form of 'i know you are but what am i?'

 

[bigfield]

Another dumb argument:

Science corrects it's mistakes.
Religion does not.
Therefore religion is more authoritative than science.

 

[James Brown]

Another dumb argument:

Science corrects it's mistakes.
Religion does not.
Therefore religion is more authoritative than science.

This exact argument was made in my Christian high school I attended. Except it wasn't described as "Science corrects mistakes." It was "Science is always changing." (I've heard Ray Comfort make this same statement more than once in debates, except his debate opponent never asks him why science changes.)

"A ten-year-old science book is nine years out of date," was one pithy quote I recall. Any guess as to which book is never out of date?

 

[bilby]

Another dumb argument:

Science corrects it's mistakes.
Religion does not.
Therefore religion is more authoritative than science.

This exact argument was made in my Christian high school I attended. Except it wasn't described as "Science corrects mistakes." It was "Science is always changing." (I've heard Ray Comfort make this same statement more than once in debates, except his debate opponent never asks him why science changes.)

"A ten-year-old science book is nine years out of date," was one pithy quote I recall. Any guess as to which book is never out of date?

I am guessing they imagine that it is their 405 year old religious text - the one that manages to be 2,016 years out of date.

 

[atrib]

Are you really so dense that you do not understand this?

I think he thinks he's scoring points, rather than just looking like another dense online apologist in over his head.

And to be fair, it's at least a little better than his attempts to 'turn it around' which just come out as a prolix form of 'i know you are but what am i?'

Lion isn't the smartest apologist to grace these forums. But I have a really hard time believing that he is unable to understand the absurdity of his arguments.

Lion: My favorite supercreature created the universe. He and his magic human clone rule the universe and can do magical things.
Me: I don't believe you because there is no evidence to support your claim.
Lion: waah! My supercreature is special, so YOU prove that my supercreature isn't real.

 

[bigfield]

Another dumb argument:

Science corrects it's mistakes.
Religion does not.
Therefore religion is more authoritative than science.

This exact argument was made in my Christian high school I attended. Except it wasn't described as "Science corrects mistakes." It was "Science is always changing." (I've heard Ray Comfort make this same statement more than once in debates, except his debate opponent never asks him why science changes.)

"A ten-year-old science book is nine years out of date," was one pithy quote I recall. Any guess as to which book is never out of date?

You don't have to go far to find that idiotic argument repeated:

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

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]

Well, I'm not anti-science despite your wishful thinking that I should conform to whatever strawman trope you like projecting onto "people like me".

I love science.

In fact I think we can thank science for helping causes near and dear to a good many biblical theists.

Science has helped the cosmological argument.
Science has helped the cause of pro-lifers.
Science has helped intelligent design concepts and obliterated much of what Darwinian evolutionary theorists hoped would bury God. Darwin thought life originated from simple ingredients. The discovery of DNA (coded information) makes spontaneous abiogenesis all the more implausible.
Science has introduced us to quantum 'spookiness' which rivals supernatural woo.

Good times! Color me happy.

And the notion that science and (Christian) religion are in opposition to one another is disproven, not only by the fact that history is full of great scientists who were biblical theists, but also the fact that religious / private schools pump out "A" grade science students every single year.

In fact, a few years ago, I was at a Science Teachers award presentation ceremony for science students who had achieved the highest ranking in Australia and the overwhelming majority of winners were from schools named after some Saint and who were wearing school uniforms emblazoned with Christian logos.

It was actually quite funny because one of the award day sponsors was the Austalian Skeptics and they were handing out certificates one-by-one, to Christian students whose aptitude for and love of science is no doubt due (in some small part) to the underlying order and beauty of Gods amazing universe.

And don't kid yourself thinking that atheist scientists are completely free from the allure numinous awe and existential wonder when they study at the frontiers of human discovery. I can quote mine the likes of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking and even Lawrence Krauss and come up with tons of quasi-religious dialectics along the lines of...who are we, how did we get here, where is everything leading to, what's it all about?

Physicist Brian Cox said our origin(s) was the most important question science seeks to answer. Why? What difference would that make?

 

[Lion IRC]

The worst argument I ever heard actually made me sick to hear it.

The guy trying to convert me told me a horrible story from the news about a man who had sexually abused his daughter for years, ultimately giving her HIV. Then she found Jesus and forgave him. And the guy talking to me told me how glorious that God could use such a horrible tragedy to glorify God through her forgiving her father.

What the Fuck?

I mean, no. No, not just no, but fuck no. There's no glory in that.

Don't you believe in redemption? Forgiveness? Something 'good' coming out of adversity and hardship - or even tragedy?

That's a pretty bleak worldview where nobody lives happily ever after.

Nothing aspirational? No silver lining?

 

[bigfield]

I can quote mine the likes of Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking and even Lawrence Krauss and come up with tons of quasi-religious dialectics along the lines of...who are we, how did we get here, where is everything leading to, what's it all about?

That's why quote-mining is a fallacy in logical argument.

 

[Lion IRC]

Another thing I hate. Allegorization. If a Biblical verse is a problem, proclaim it does not mean what it obviously does mean. Allegorize it away with sophistry. Or claim those poor old primitive priests didn't really know what they were writing about so we can ignore these verses. Well, if you do that, why not just throw all of this supposed "revelation" out and be done with it?

I agree, people shouldnt try to sweep away allegedly 'difficult' verses as allegory.

If they really are difficult (and some are) then dressing them up as mere allegory doesn't really answer the underlying issue that a sincere bible skeptic wants to question.

You aren't really giving an apologetic explanation to someone who wants to know what's going on if you can't join the dots and explain why the allegory is there and, (if it can't be taken at face value,) what purpose it actually serves by being there in the first place.

Of course many bible critics who engage in challenges to the 'literal' versus 'allegorical' flip flopping are being somewhat disingenuous because they won't allow the bible to use symbolic or allegorical language - or even figures of speech - which they wouldn't challenge in any other ancient/classical writings.

If you use an expression like "watching a beautiful sunset" you don't have to explain to everyone that you know the sun doesn't actually move. And loving someone "with all your heart" doesn't imply that romantic love is literally a function of the aorta. So presumably you would grant some linguistic latitude to the bible writers rather than having one rule for everyone else and strict inflexibility when discussing the bible with apologist wannabes (like me.)