Religious arguments and analogies that really bother you

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

Nothing aspirational? No silver lining?

I practice all those things. I just leave religion out of it because religion adds neither value nor knowledge.

Without those things mixed in religion is something less than cultural garbage.

 

[abaddon]

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

Biblical theist’s beliefs can’t survive except by defying science, and they’ve been working hard at it for centuries and still are.

You’d said before you’d like scientists to have revised the Bible, weirdly imagining that would result in a science-supported Bible. You don’t seem able to realize the things you find near and dear in the Bible would not survive the process: no special creation by a deity, no Adam and Eve, no ark and global flood, no resurrecting persons, etc, etc.

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.

False on all counts.
The cosmological argument has the appearance of reason only to those who define God into existing. God seems necessary only because he's defined to be necessary, and the definition doesn't make the claim true.
"Pro-life" and "pro-choice" is an ethical disagreement about personhood which isn’t a scientific matter.
Even on the occasions when Intelligent Design proponents managed to make any testable claims, those claims were refuted.
Quantum mechanics has withstood an enormous number of experimental tests which supernatural woo lacks in remarkable abundance, so there’s no actual comparison other than the irrelevant impression that they’re both strange.

About schools named after saints... that Christianity is inherently anti-science in its naivety about supernaturalist presumptions doesn't mean Christians can't get A's in science classes.

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.

The feelings aren't religious. Presuming supernatural shit is what inspired the feelings, or getting devout and ritually celebratory over the feelings, is what would qualify any of it as religious.

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?

So you still haven't learned what quote mining is.

There's nothing inherently religious in those questions, so they don't turn "quasi-religious" when atheists ask them.

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

Professor Cox also asked: "There may have been more than one Big Bang and probably, in these theories, there are an infinite number of universes being created all the time. So what does that mean? What does it mean that our existence is inevitable, that the universe may have been around forever?”

So, I wonder, what difference does it make for Christianity to ask such questions as Prof Cox asks, with open-minded scientific investigation rather than supernaturalist presumptions in mind, except that the answer probably won't lead to any sort of god?

From the same article:

"When I ask him how God fits into his understanding of the universe, Prof Cox says: 'It doesn’t at all. I honestly don’t think about religion until someone asks me about it.' And that’s because, he explains, science is not about asking grand questions but very simple ones. The way to find out answers to big questions is 'almost accidentally'."

Doesn't look like he thinks he asks religious or "quasi-religious" questions.

Quotes from this article.

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

Maybe it seems an important question to him and others because it’d replace naive supernaturalist answers with evidence-based ones, to satisfy the natural and not-uniquely-religious desire to understand our place in nature.

 

[bigfield]

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.

Too bad for you that none of those things are true:

Science has helped the cosmological argument.

Nope: it's still special pleading.

Science has helped the cause of pro-lifers.

Nope: souls are still imaginary.

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.

The claim that DNA is irreducibly complex is just as groundless as every other claim of irreducible complexity.

Creationist information theory is Christian pseudoscience at its finest:

"Creationists, in an attempt to coat their myths with a veneer of science, have co-opted the idea of information theory to use as a plausible-sounding attack on evolution. Essentially, the claim is that the genetic code is like a language and thus transmits information, and in part due to the usual willful misunderstandings of the second law of thermodynamics (which is about energy, not information), they maintain that information can never be increased.[10] Therefore, the changes they cannot outright deny are defined as "losing information", while changes they disagree with are defined as "gaining information", which by their definition is impossible. Note that at no point do creationists actually specify what information actually is and often (even in the allegedly scientific case of complex specified information) will purposefully avoid defining the concept in any useful way. The creationists tend to change their meaning on an ad hoc basis depending on the argument, relying on colloquial, imprecise definitions of information rather than quantifiable ones -- or worse, switching interchangeably between different definitions depending on the context of the discussion or argument.


​

The deliberate conflation of the totally unrelated concepts of thermodynamic and informational entropy is, while an obvious flaw in the argument, a flaw that the creationists' intended audience is less likely to pick up on, so it remains a popular argument, as seen in Ken Ham's... debate with Bill Nye at the Creation Museum."​

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Information_theory#Creationist_information_theory

Irreducible complexity is a classic example of a God of the Gaps argument. Every time science exposes more of your religious bullshit to be wrong, you improvise new, ad hoc reasons why your silly claims might still be true.

Science has introduced us to quantum 'spookiness' which rivals supernatural woo.

That just goes to show how little you understand about quantum mechanics.

Whereas quantum mechanics is supported by a huge amount of scientific evidence, supernatural woo is not supported by any scientific evidence. Equivocating the two by quote-mining Einstein is just plain dishonest.

I was at a Science Teachers award presentation ceremony

The irony.

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.

What makes you think those students are even Christian? I know from first hand experience, as an atheist at an Anglican school and one of the top students in each of physics, biology and chemistry, that many private school students are not Christian, let alone members of the same denomination as the school.

In fact, it's obvious that there are other reasons why private school students tend to be the highest achievers: they come from the most privileged backgrounds and have smart, educated parents who have cultivated intelligent children and can afford to send them to élite schools.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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

This is the best argument against religion IMHO. Christianity for instance doesn't have a mechanism to correct it's own mistakes. They put all their efforts in denying the mistakes instead. The Catholic Church solved that in 1939 by just deciding that science is a sacred activity.

 

[iolo]

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

This is the best argument against religion IMHO. Christianity for instance doesn't have a mechanism to correct it's own mistakes. They put all their efforts in denying the mistakes instead. The Catholic Church solved that in 1939 by just deciding that science is a sacred activity.

Are Roman Catholics in fact Christians? Other Churches certainly correct their mistakes, or they wouldn't have changed so much.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Divine Command Theory.

Christians complain about moral relativism, but any authority-based moral system inevitably leads to there most extremes form of moral relativism imaginable. Wiping out all the men women and children in an enjoyed town is good when God commands it, but bad when you command the same thing.

This one really gets to me too. I feel the need to constantly tell the fundies that morality and obedience to power are not one and the same, and the fact I need to do that so often scares me.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

By far though, I think the worst (in terms of being infuriating) types of arguments by the religious are those that rely on them knowing your state of mind better than you do, as if they have god-telepathy. The "you all just want to sin" or "you think you're higher than god" type of arguments fall into this category.

I actually enjoy when somebody makes that one to me, because the response is always "Why do you need me to be....", because is what they are really saying. If they tell you that you are not really an atheist, there are no atheists, and you are just angry at God, they are telling you how weak their own faith is. They can't handle accepting that atheists exist, especially any who are intelligent and speak with logic and reason, because that undermines their own ability to believe. It shows a crack in the hold religion has over them. Or at least I like to think it does.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

This is just word games. Negative and positive statements have equivalent information value.

The difference is that theism is affirmative. It affirms a special thing. Atheism is not. It makes no statement about anything. It simply rejects a form of affirmation

 

[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.

This is just word games....

Yes, it really is.

Saying affirmatively... "I am innocent" is just another way of saying "I'm not guilty"

If my medical tests come back 'negative' (a lack of evidence) I dont go around declaring I'm NOT unwell. (Double negative)

Saying "I don't think God exists" is as much a statement of theistic belief as the opposite contention..."I do think God exists".

To be or not to be. You can't get anything more diametrically OPPOSITE than these two propositions.

People will think this is some type of sophistry designed to shift the persuasive burden of proof but I don't expect anyone to take up some supposed burden if they don't feel they need to.

In fact, I wouldn't mind at all if atheists choose to continuously remain unpersuasive.

 

[Underseer]

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.

This is just word games. Negative and positive statements have equivalent information value.

The difference is that theism is affirmative. It affirms a special thing. Atheism is not. It makes no statement about anything. It simply rejects a form of affirmation

I lack the lack of belief in fairies, therefore fairies are real! You can't prove that fairies don't exist, therefore exist! You can't say I have the burden of proof for fairies because as I already told you, I lack the lack of belief in fairies, therefore burden is on those who don't believe in fairies!

 

[Underseer]

I lack the lack of belief in skull-juggling psychic were-walruses from Pluto, therefore I do not have the burden of proving skull-juggling psychic were-walruses from Pluto, while you have the burden of disproving skull-juggling psychic were-walruses from Pluto.

Because I lack the belief of lacking belief in skull-juggling psychic were-walruses from Pluto.

 

[Underseer]

I lack the belief of lack of belief in Krishna, therefore you have the burden of disproving Krishna, and I do not have a burden of proving Krishna.

Since you cannot disprove Krishna, this means your lack of belief in Krishna is false, therefore Krishna is real.

Since the Bible claims to represent the one and only true religion, the Bible is definitely false because I just proved that another god from another religion is true and real.

See how much fun this is?

Absolutely anything you can imagine is definitely true as long as you say that you lack belief in lack of belief in that thing.

- - - Updated - - -

I lack belief in lack of belief in the Force, therefore Jedi are real!

I lack belief in lack of belief in the twin gods of the Wiccan religion, therefore the sham religion is true!

 

[Underseer]

I lack belief in the lack of belief in Harry Potter, therefore Hogwarts is a real place! The greatest trick Voldemort ever played was convincing you that he isn't real! He did that so you would reject Harry Potter!

You just don't believe in Harry Potter because you want to be a bad person!

- - - Updated - - -

I lack belief in the lack of belief in Bugs Bunny!

 

[Lion IRC]

I lack belief in lack of belief in the Force, therefore Jedi are real!

I'm reporting you to Darth Vader.

 

[Lion IRC]

In the law, there are crimes of commission and crimes of omission.
Imagine that! Being charged with the crime of NOT doing something.

 

[atrib]

People will think this is some type of sophistry designed to shift the persuasive burden of proof but I don't expect anyone to take up some supposed burden if they don't feel they need to.

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.

So, to answer my earlier question, I do think that you are more dense than the average apologist that wanders by these parts, but you also deliberately set out to deceive. Equal parts density and dishonesty.

You claim god exists, you prove it. Or shut up. Really easy, except to an apologist who is willing to lie for Jesus!

 

[bigfield]

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.

I don't believe gods exist, because there is neither a rational philosophical argument to support their existence nor empirical evidence to support their existence.

The inversion:

"I don't believe gods don't exist because there is neither a rational philosophical argument to support their non-existence nor empirical evidence to support their non-existence."

If that is you position then it is irrational to believe in the personal god of Christianity, because your lack of belief in the non-existence of gods cannot reasonably be specific to the non-existence of the Christian god.

You don't simply lack a belief in the nonexistence of gods; you believe in a specific god and believe in the non-existence of thousands of others. You have also claimed to have access to some kind of 'evidence' that the personal god of Christianity is real. (Your own Road to Damascus moment?)

Since you believe that a specific god exists on the basis of some kind of personal divine revelation, your position is not comparable to a lack of belief in gods based on a lack of evidence or sound argument.

In the specific case of the Christian personal god, one can provide several arguments that such a god is logically impossible, such as Euthypro's dilemma and the Problem of Evil; philosophers have disproven your god for millenia. Since your belief exists in the presence of sound arguments that render your god impossible, you still choose to believe and further distance yourself from reason.

 

[Lion IRC]

People will think this is some type of sophistry designed to shift the persuasive burden of proof but I don't expect anyone to take up some supposed burden if they don't feel they need to.

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.

If you claim that I expect you to disprove God (based on anything I have actually posted) then you are either ignorant or dishonest.

How many times do I have to say it? I don't care whether you decide to try and defend atheism.
It would be against my own interests to demand or invite you to push that wheel barrow.
Let it go pal! Nobody is shaking your tree.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is just word games....

Yes, it really is.

Saying affirmatively... "I am innocent" is just another way of saying "I'm not guilty"

If my medical tests come back 'negative' (a lack of evidence) I dont go around declaring I'm NOT unwell. (Double negative)

Saying "I don't think God exists" is as much a statement of theistic belief as the opposite contention..."I do think God exists".

To be or not to be. You can't get anything more diametrically OPPOSITE than these two propositions.

People will think this is some type of sophistry designed to shift the persuasive burden of proof but I don't expect anyone to take up some supposed burden if they don't feel they need to.

In fact, I wouldn't mind at all if atheists choose to continuously remain unpersuasive.

In logic we differentiate between statements that say "there is such a thing as bla bla which is true for given such and such conditions" vs "for all bla bla it is true that bla bla".

Atheism is of the first kind. Theism is the second.

From assuming theism is true you can draw lots of conclusions about the world.

From assuming atheism is true you can draw no conclusions about the world. It tells you nothing about the world. It just tells you that one possible hypothesis (wich is assumed false) is false.

It is an important distinction. It was a while ago I did logic. But it's the difference between a universal quantifier vs an existential quantifier.

It can be a bit tricky to crack the code. But once you do it becomes easy to tell the categories apart.

 

[Lion IRC]

Yes but I think they are contrivances.
Self-serving much of the time.