Religious arguments and analogies that really bother you

[Brian63]

I was reading from some Christians writing a while back who were ranting against atheists, how we are politically engaged, how irrational and immoral they perceive us to be, and those usual kinds of matters. The common analogy was raised of how a pot never questions the potter which made it, and therefore how humans should also not question that we have a creator too, and we should never question any command it gives us to obey either. There are all sorts of faults and fallacies with those arguments, and it is also just a really flawed analogy to describe the role that humans serve to the deity, even if the deity existed in the first place. It is an extremely frequent analogy to be used though. In reading it again just now, I realized just how much I am annoyed by this argument in particular, and how tired I am of seeing it too. If there was 1 apologetic argument that I wish I could wipe out from all of human history and modern theistic apologetics, it would be the pot/potter analogy. When someone raises it, it serves more to show me how little (quality) thought that person has given to their religious views, even when those views are serve as a heavy background that is very influential on that person and the rest of their worldview and beliefs as well.

Is there any particular argument that you see being raised at times by theists and evangelists, that you find particularly disturbing and annoying? Either a particularly common one or a particularly rare one, it just bugs you.




…yeah, it has been one of those kinds of days for me here…grrrrr…


Brian

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This argument is a big pet peeve of mine too. The whole of Paul's theology is based on the ideas that all is predestined, and that God causes all to happen. Some are saved, some condemned, not because o anything thy do, but because God causes all to happen as it does. yet, God is good, and merciful and compassionate. Not. It makes the Universe with this God running things an insane system, full of unnecessary evil. Its an utterly insane theology.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm pissed off that the religious argument that incest is wrong has made it into our laws. My sister is frigging hot, FFS.

Also, the God of the gaps type of arguments. We don't know the answer to something, so why not just stick a god in there? Those are stupid.

 

[James Brown]

I'm bothered by the whole, "If you deconverted, then you must not have been a True Christian. (Like I am...ahem.)"

Yes, the Bible is clear that once-saved-always-saved. Of course the Bible is also clear that the Earth is flat, the Universe is small, and that your donkey will talk to you if you beat it hard enough, but hey.

Never mind that I would have argued the same thing up until the day I decided I couldn't believe the whole thing anymore. Ergo, anyone who throws it in my face is in the same place that I was once, so who knows? They may one day have a change of heart, too! Don't believe me? Well, neither would I have believed me a few years ago.

Bottom line is, the only True Christian is a Dead Christian.

 

[FwL]

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.

 

[Methinx]

I was reading from some Christians writing a while back who were ranting against atheists, how we are politically engaged, how irrational and immoral they perceive us to be, and those usual kinds of matters. The common analogy was raised of how a pot never questions the potter which made it, and therefore how humans should also not question that we have a creator too, and we should never question any command it gives us to obey either. There are all sorts of faults and fallacies with those arguments, and it is also just a really flawed analogy to describe the role that humans serve to the deity, even if the deity existed in the first place. It is an extremely frequent analogy to be used though. In reading it again just now, I realized just how much I am annoyed by this argument in particular, and how tired I am of seeing it too. If there was 1 apologetic argument that I wish I could wipe out from all of human history and modern theistic apologetics, it would be the pot/potter analogy. When someone raises it, it serves more to show me how little (quality) thought that person has given to their religious views, even when those views are serve as a heavy background that is very influential on that person and the rest of their worldview and beliefs as well.

Is there any particular argument that you see being raised at times by theists and evangelists, that you find particularly disturbing and annoying? Either a particularly common one or a particularly rare one, it just bugs you.




…yeah, it has been one of those kinds of days for me here…grrrrr…


Brian

Yes, that one gets me as well, I always use the same answer:

The old Potter and His Clay conundrum swings both ways.

If the clay should not ask of the Potter; "Why have you made me thus?"
Neither should the Potter be absolved from personal responsibility for any faults or defects in the finished product coming from his hands.
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Omar Khayyam puts it very neatly:

"I came not hither of my own free will,
And go against my wish, a puppet still;

When Allah mixed my clay He knew full well
My future acts, and could each one foretell;

Without His will no act of mine was wrought;
Is it then just to punish me in hell?"



What really gets me is that whatever you say you are always wrong and they always right.

 

[Underseer]

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.

Ever notice the flagrant moral double standard Republicans have? How things are moral when Republicans do it, but immoral when Democrats do the same thing? I honestly think this is the basis for that. For all the time Republicans spend complaining about moral relativism, they are the biggest moral relativists. Things are good or bad based on who does it, not what is done.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Some good ones here. Pascal's wager is awful of course. Also this weird idea that "Christian" morals, whatever those could be, are somehow not subjective like everything else because they're based on an unchanging god. This irks me because it's so easy to show how Christians have changed their rules, time and again (usually not far behind the secular alternative) throughout history. It's not really a theological argument, but "If we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" argument comes up, I'm out. 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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

For me, it's the people trying to prove that God exists and end up misusing arguments about god's nature. One argument from another forum

We evidence of God in the fact that He has not wiped us off the planet yet for our sin. This shows he is indeed abounding in mercy and slow to wrath

If there is a god, this might be proof of his mercy. But it isn't evidence of God. 'God not doing (something)' is more along the lines of evidence there ISN'T a god.

It's like saying "we can prove there's a polar bear under the porch because he has never eaten the children. This shows that he is a tame polar bear."

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

 

[Brian63]

It's like saying "we can prove there's a polar bear under the porch because he has never eaten the children. This shows that he is a tame polar bear."

You saying that got me to literally laugh out loud here...that is a very funny (and accurate) way to phrase it. Thank you.

Brian

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

Yes! This is the most annoying one. And when they speak to you as if you secretly believe and are lying to them when you say that you are an atheist that bothers me too. I don't appreciate being told what I think and being told what I am "actually" thinking etc. If you ask them "why can't atheists just be wrong?" they don't have an answer, but they don't seem to want to allow that. You can't just be wrong, they need you to be insidious.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you ask them "why can't atheists just be wrong?"

Oooh! That's the other one. The pigeonhole of what 'atheism' means or says, as told by a theist.

The label, atheist, talks about me. _I_ don't have a belief in a deity. It is not a claim that I have searched the entire universe and surveyed all the possible states of existence to determine that no god could possible exist anywhere. It is not meant to say I have disproven the concept of deities as a matter of physics, cosmology, or some such scientific discipline, with peer review. It just says I don't believe. I don't believe in your god, his personal god, her traditional gods, their kinda fuzzy god-concept, anyone's gods of hearth or heaven.

so the argument that I can't be an atheist unless I'm omniscient, that's a peeve.

 

[Brian63]

Just wondering here, for those of you mentioning how the speculating on motives bothers you---I can relate and sympathize with that sentiment when theists are doing it, just wondering if it bothers you as well when nontheists also speculate on the motives of theists, or when people of one political view (including the ones you hold yourself) speculate on the motives of the people who hold opposite political views, or the same thing with various other topics. It is an extremely common procedure that sooooo many people do all across the spectrum, not just something that theists to do nontheists. It has long bugged me a bit when I see atheists complaining about theists do it, when atheists do it as well and there is no complaint made about them then. Actually, it also bugs me that it bugs me when theists do it, but not as much when atheists do it, and there is no good reason I can think of for why it should bug me to different levels. I think it is my own bias there, and I am trying to reduce that. There are just a couple different approaches that could be taken to do so, and so I want to give this matter more consideration here. Your input would be appreciated and welcome too.

Thanks,

Brian

 

[Keith&Co.]

and there is no good reason I can think of for why it should bug me to different levels.

Really?
There was a lot of pressure, when I was a believer, to think certain ways, to accept the official line on certain topics.
You probably don't get upset about a non-theist making a statement about, for example, 'what Catholics believe' because
1) it matches your understanding of what Catholics believe,
2) you have that understanding because it's something the Catholics themselves put out as part of their own faith. It's not a big secret. They'll even try to justify it.

At the same time, there's not that much unity among atheists, so even if someone's quoting what one atheist said (I hate that god took my mother so I don't believe in him), it's unlikely to apply to atheists as a group.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

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?

 

[Underseer]

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.

That one is incredibly annoying, and we all know why they do it: they want to declare their truth claims immune to challenge.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Just wondering here, for those of you mentioning how the speculating on motives bothers you---I can relate and sympathize with that sentiment when theists are doing it, just wondering if it bothers you as well when nontheists also speculate on the motives of theists, or when people of one political view (including the ones you hold yourself) speculate on the motives of the people who hold opposite political views, or the same thing with various other topics. It is an extremely common procedure that sooooo many people do all across the spectrum, not just something that theists to do nontheists. It has long bugged me a bit when I see atheists complaining about theists do it, when atheists do it as well and there is no complaint made about them then. Actually, it also bugs me that it bugs me when theists do it, but not as much when atheists do it, and there is no good reason I can think of for why it should bug me to different levels. I think it is my own bias there, and I am trying to reduce that. There are just a couple different approaches that could be taken to do so, and so I want to give this matter more consideration here. Your input would be appreciated and welcome too.

Thanks,

Brian

Yes, it bothers me the other way around too. I try to avoid it if I can. A good example I used to see quite often was accusations that people were theists because they were afraid of death. That may or may not be true, and cannot easily be ascertained, so why introduce it into the discussion? Ugh. Hate that.

 

[Underseer]

If you ask them "why can't atheists just be wrong?"

Oooh! That's the other one. The pigeonhole of what 'atheism' means or says, as told by a theist.

The label, atheist, talks about me. _I_ don't have a belief in a deity. It is not a claim that I have searched the entire universe and surveyed all the possible states of existence to determine that no god could possible exist anywhere. It is not meant to say I have disproven the concept of deities as a matter of physics, cosmology, or some such scientific discipline, with peer review. It just says I don't believe. I don't believe in your god, his personal god, her traditional gods, their kinda fuzzy god-concept, anyone's gods of hearth or heaven.

so the argument that I can't be an atheist unless I'm omniscient, that's a peeve.

You secretly believe in God, so you're obviously lying about being an atheist.

The thing to understand is that that argument is not for your benefit, but for theirs. If they can convince themselves that everyone secretly believes in their god and that all who do not follow their religion are lying, then they don't have to think about the Problem of Divine Hiddenness.

 

[Brian63]

You probably don't get upset about a non-theist making a statement about, for example, 'what Catholics believe' because
1) it matches your understanding of what Catholics believe,

Yes it might. The reason it might could be because it actually does so, or perhaps I am just biased to view it as doing so even if it does not. Everybody, nontheists included, is human and thus is subject to all kinds of biases...biases that they are unaware of and even in denial of...we just have to try to remain on the lookout for them on ourselves, and each other too.

2) you have that understanding because it's something the Catholics themselves put out as part of their own faith. It's not a big secret. They'll even try to justify it.

Not all Catholics are the same---they will actually have different internal motivations, and they will also have different perceptions (and misperceptions) of what their own motives are, and the motives of each other. It is a large guessing game that is being played, that most people do not even realize they are playing....they instead are certain and they are overconfident when they speculate on the motives of various other people, theist and nontheist alike.

At the same time, there's not that much unity among atheists, so even if someone's quoting what one atheist said (I hate that god took my mother so I don't believe in him), it's unlikely to apply to atheists as a group.

I agree that being an atheist establishes a position on the existence of a god and necessarily says nothing else about anything else. As a group generalization though, I would say there are some other claims that can be true. For instance, most of the atheist posters on this forum are socially and politically liberal, and not conservative. Other generalizations cannot be declared though...it just depends mostly on the specifics and details of the particular claim....so making a generalization about generalizations is difficult as well.

Brian