Atheists - arrogant?

[Wiploc]

Many centuries of philosophy have failed to produce a single rational, evidence-based argument for God. All have been shown to be seriously flawed.

The option does not exist because you have this blind faith (real distinction of faith) that all rational arguments have been defeated. Just as easily as you can say they have been defeated I can express they have not. And I can support it with a sweeping statement like this........... Time and time again through the centuries your defeaters have been defeated. Your statement is nothing more than the way you want the world to be. A belief you hold without evidence. (the actual definition of blind faith)

I believe RB's claim, not because I've studied the history of philosophy, but because theist arguments seem so dumb. Generally, they shouldn't fool a sixth grader.

Plantinga's modal ontological argument is an exception, because it is long and dense, above the average sixth grader's comprehension. But once you have read it, the flaws are as obvious as those in other theist arguments.

The only theist argument that I'm aware of not being able to refute myself has to do with polonium halos. I can't refute it because I don't know enough about geology to understand what the problem is supposed to be.

But I generalize that the polonium halo argument is wrong and stupid because the other arguments for believing in god are wrong and stupid. And good arguments drive out bad. If the polonium halo argument was good, theists would all be using it. They wouldn't be relying on those patently stupid arguments that only a desperately motivated believer would cling to.

If I can, without training, refute all but one of the arguments for believing in gods, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that philosophers have been refuting those same arguments for centuries.

 

[remez]

If I can, without training, refute all but one of the arguments for believing in gods, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that philosophers have been refuting those same arguments for centuries.

BUT......
If I can, without training, defeat all of the weak defeaters purported against the theistic arguments, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that the atheists have not defeated the theistic arguments for God's existence.

 

[Torin]

If I can, without training, refute all but one of the arguments for believing in gods, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that philosophers have been refuting those same arguments for centuries.

BUT......
If I can, without training, defeat all of the weak defeaters purported against the theistic arguments, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that the atheists have not defeated the theistic arguments for God's existence.

That's interesting. Which arguments for God's existence do you think are sound?

 

[atrib]

If I can, without training, refute all but one of the arguments for believing in gods, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that philosophers have been refuting those same arguments for centuries.

BUT......
If I can, without training, defeat all of the weak defeaters purported against the theistic arguments, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that the atheists have not defeated the theistic arguments for God's existence.

Your logic is unsound. Defeating a specific objection to a theistic argument would not necessarily mean that all other objections can also be defeated. Huge stretch!

What theistic arguments do you believe have not been defeated yet? What evidence can you provide that supports the existence of any gods, much less the god of the Bible?

 

[Wiploc]

If I can, without training, refute all but one of the arguments for believing in gods, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that philosophers have been refuting those same arguments for centuries.

BUT......
If I can, without training, defeat all of the weak defeaters purported against the theistic arguments, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that the atheists have not defeated the theistic arguments for God's existence.

If you know of a good argument, I'm keen to hear it. You can be world famous overnight.

 

[Learner]

We can all be famous I suppose and make good arguments, in the context of "counter-arguments, which is sort of similar to what Remez is saying. We can forget the notion, "you can neither prove of disprove creation and so forth" debating back and forth back and forth. etc..etc..

 

[Learner]

I mean simply (my ability level), the Bible Exists! Christians believe the writings / scriptures are true , and come to that conclusion by various things: personal experiences, deductive logical inference from: bible study, or perhaps science study (across the broad spectrum) , obviously there those that just believe by default (for lack of better discription) but these are the reasons for our belief claims.

To challenge with "defeating" argument(s) against the claims where the argument can't be countered . Know suggestions: Proof the bible is made up, Proof It was written by people that had halucinations, It was written for the purpose of profiting, Controlingl the masses, or all of the above maybe, proven by science or natural world philosophy.

 

[remez]

If I can, without training, refute all but one of the arguments for believing in gods, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that philosophers have been refuting those same arguments for centuries.

BUT......
If I can, without training, defeat all of the weak defeaters purported against the theistic arguments, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that the atheists have not defeated the theistic arguments for God's existence.

Your logic is unsound. Defeating a specific objection to a theistic argument would not necessarily mean that all other objections can also be defeated. Huge stretch!

What theistic arguments do you believe have not been defeated yet? What evidence can you provide that supports the existence of any gods, much less the god of the Bible?

Hello atrib,

If I had said……. defeating one defeater defeats them all…….then that would be unsound. Since I did not, you own the stretch.

 

[remez]

If I can, without training, refute all but one of the arguments for believing in gods, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that philosophers have been refuting those same arguments for centuries.

BUT......
If I can, without formal training, defeat all of the weak defeaters purported against the theistic arguments, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that the atheists have not defeated the theistic arguments for God's existence.

If you know of a good argument, I'm keen to hear it. You can be world famous overnight.

Cute.
I’m sure we're both WELL aware of the common arguments for God’s existence.

You asserted that they have all been defeated and were childish to begin with. I simply took a shot and mimicked your response back at you (to the contrary) to expose the arrogance. Which was the context of this thread and my reason for mimicking you. My shot seems to have hit the mark by the taunt-to-fight nature and tone of your response.

Should we journey further to your intent of exploring the failures of the defeaters, I fear I would be derailing the thread. So for now I’m content to leave it there.

But I did almost go there.

 

[Wiploc]

If I can, without training, refute all but one of the arguments for believing in gods, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that philosophers have been refuting those same arguments for centuries.

BUT......
If I can, without formal training, defeat all of the weak defeaters purported against the theistic arguments, then it doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to believe that the atheists have not defeated the theistic arguments for God's existence.

If you know of a good argument, I'm keen to hear it. You can be world famous overnight.

Cute.
I’m sure we're both WELL aware of the common arguments for God’s existence.

The ones I know of are obviously flawed.

You asserted that they have all been defeated and were childish to begin with. I simply took a shot and mimicked your response back at you (to the contrary) to expose the arrogance.

I own the arrogance. I like to make people laugh, which was part of the purpose of my post.

Which was the context of this thread and my reason for mimicking you. My shot seems to have hit the mark by the taunt-to-fight nature and tone of your response.

If you know of a non-stupid argument for believing in gods, this is important. The world wants to know. The argument should be shared.

Think of all the poor Christians who are sent out to do battle armed only with stupid arguments. If you have a non-stupid argument for them, they want to hear it.

Should we journey further to your intent of exploring the failures of the defeaters, I fear I would be derailing the thread. So for now I’m content to leave it there.

We can start a new thread.

But I did almost go there.

Let's do it!

 

[atrib]

Your logic is unsound. Defeating a specific objection to a theistic argument would not necessarily mean that all other objections can also be defeated. Huge stretch!

What theistic arguments do you believe have not been defeated yet? What evidence can you provide that supports the existence of any gods, much less the god of the Bible?

Hello atrib,

If I had said……. defeating one defeater defeats them all…….then that would be unsound. Since I did not, you own the stretch.

Fair enough. You said "defeat all of the weak defeaters". Even assuming you had defeated "all of the weak defeaters purported against the theistic arguments", which I don't think is the case, it doesn't necessarily follow that "the atheists have not defeated the theistic arguments for God's existence". Especially since you acknowledge that the defeaters you had defeated were weak. It would be like atheists claiming victory because they had managed to poke holes in the arguments of "simple minded" theists on these very forums (I think you had said something like that, but I could be mistaken.

We could play with words for hours. But the fact remains that there doesn't exist a good argument to support the existence of gods, much less the specific god described in the Bible. Which is why faith is needed - people pretending that they know stuff they don't actually know.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Anyone remember back in time when Christians persecuted Christians in America? It was called Jim Crow. ...

That was because of race, not religion. Look for some real examples, like what happened to Joseph Smith and his fellow Mormons, or how some New England colonies regarded Catholicism.

The point is, in America, the greatest persecution against Christians was by Christians.