Two common atheist fallacies

Encountered a "new" argument that we haven't addressed? Post it here.

Postby donnyton » Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:54 pm

Thomas wrote:God is more real then science or logic because when you stop using science and logic you don't change, or stop being yourself, but when people lose faith in God they become depressed or confused and thus God is more concrete then logic and science.


Big mistake.

Realize that there's at least a handful of people here who not only have lost faith in God, but have only seen positive benefits as a result.
"To say that it's not okay to believe in something that may or may not be true is ridiculous. Some people like to have that mystical fantasy in the world. It adds flavor."
donnyton
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:17 am

Postby Thomas » Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:21 pm

@ Marathon and donnyton

But if science has no emotional appeal then science can not deal with ethics or will. If God is just a tool then he does not deal with ethics or will. So Christians who see God as a tool are not real religious Christians. They are in reality scientists who think God is a theory to be debunked. That is why you people turned to science and not philosophy when you became atheists. You have always seen God as another tool to make your lives seem better. no wonder you feel better when you put God away. Because by trying to live independant from your fake God tool, you have actually found God. Real Christians need to lose there plastic version of God, before they can find God and become real Christians. Atleast this is what i belief through experience and independant living.

Also, how can you go and say that God is more concrete than science in your previous post and then in this one go on to say that people couldn't lose faith in science etc. Those two statements seem to contradict each other.


You have to be more clearer and actually quote me because i don't understand what you mean.
Thomas
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:28 pm

Postby Marathon » Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:55 pm

Thomas wrote:But if science has no emotional appeal then science can not deal with ethics or will. If God is just a tool then he does not deal with ethics or will.

And? I don't see how it's some failure on the part of science if it does not also double as a source of ethics. Someone can be fascinated by science and believe in a materialistic universe and derive their values and ethics from somewhere else. And it should go without saying that that place does not have to be church or the bible.

So Christians who see God as a tool are not real religious Christians. They are in reality scientists who think God is a theory to be debunked. That is why you people turned to science and not philosophy when you became atheists.

Actually. I don't feel God is a theory to be debunked. As he is most commonly described, God is a concept untestable by science and therefore it's pointless to even try.
About turning to science and not philosophy. I find it slightly offensive that you would be so presumptuous as to tell me what I have done since becoming an atheist. In reality, since becoming an atheist I have probably thought more deeply about my own personal philosophies than ever before. Now that I can't simply state that I believe something because it's in the bible, I make sure my beliefs are well thought out and justified from the beginning.
Marathon
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 1:32 am
Location: Fargo

Postby stenlis » Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:23 am

To all:

I wanted to discuss two specific points in this thread (see the OP). Please respect it or the discussion will never get anywhere. If you want to debate the emotional impact of atheism and similar topics, please make a separate thread for it.
stenlis
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: TN

Postby GizmoIscariot » Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:38 pm

Thomas wrote:God is more real then science or logic because when you stop using science and logic you don't change, or stop being yourself, but when people lose faith in God they become depressed or confused and thus God is more concrete then logic and science.


Yeah you should be careful of asserting what other people feel. If at some point you lost your faith and were depressed, thats not indicative of everyone. Personally the few that I have talked to, including myself (though I didn't have a whole lot of faith, I just took it that there was a god and it didn't really matter till I realized that it does matter if there is one or not). Once I realized that I did not have to be in a religion to belong/be whole I found I was much happier to realize that I did not have to pigeonhole myself and am able to deal with everything on its own terms and not posit things I can't show.

Personally I think logic and science are based on rational thought and evidence, whereas a god is based on an assumption of many other assumptions that have no evidence. To me, the former seems far more concrete than the latter.
GizmoIscariot
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:57 am
Location: Riverside, CA

Postby GizmoIscariot » Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:43 pm

stenlis wrote:To all:

I wanted to discuss two specific points in this thread (see the OP). Please respect it or the discussion will never get anywhere. If you want to debate the emotional impact of atheism and similar topics, please make a separate thread for it.


Though most of this will be somewhat of a repeat of what others have said, heres my two cents.

In response to the creator's creator, when I have been presented with that its almost always in this form, one of which Ray Comfort loves to use. "The universe is here. Just like a building was built, it had to have a builder. A painting had to have a painter (and so on). Therefore, everything has to have a creator, even the universe and us." When put that way, it does require a creator's creator forever back, if EVERYTHING has to have a creator/first cause/whatever. Of course most theists always say "Well, everything has to have a creator except God, cause hes outside of time/space/material." That doesn't solve anything and its special pleading to say that well, the creator you posit is the only thing that gets out of the "everything needs a creator." If for some reason it was agreed that your creator could get out of that, I believe its equally valid to say that well the universe has always been here, in some form. And one thing that Hitchens likes to bring up is that people like junk explanations over no explanation. We may not know what form the universe was before the big bang, but positing a creator is unknown and therefore unfounded.

On a side, yet somewhat related note, I wish theists (and those debating them should stop them from this) saying that atheists claim that the universe came out of nothing. That implies that it hasn't always been here in some form. The problem is people are so used to the idea that something has to be created, start from something that its hard to imagine otherwise.
GizmoIscariot
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:57 am
Location: Riverside, CA

Postby stenlis » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:33 pm

GizmoIscariot wrote:In response to the creator's creator, when I have been presented with that its almost always in this form, one of which Ray Comfort loves to use. "The universe is here. Just like a building was built, it had to have a builder. A painting had to have a painter (and so on). Therefore, everything has to have a creator, even the universe and us."


Sure, when responding to this kind of argument, asking for creator's creator is valid. I just saw a lot of instances when the theists didn't claim that everything (except god) must have a creator and the atheists used it anyway.

On a side note - I tend to approach the 'everything has a creator' differently by claiming that nothing has a creator - everything you see around you was merely assembled from energy/matter that was already there and that nothing seems to indicate that mass/energy as a whole had to 'come out of nothing somehow'.
stenlis
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: TN

Postby GizmoIscariot » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:12 pm

stenlis wrote:
GizmoIscariot wrote:In response to the creator's creator, when I have been presented with that its almost always in this form, one of which Ray Comfort loves to use. "The universe is here. Just like a building was built, it had to have a builder. A painting had to have a painter (and so on). Therefore, everything has to have a creator, even the universe and us."


Sure, when responding to this kind of argument, asking for creator's creator is valid. I just saw a lot of instances when the theists didn't claim that everything (except god) must have a creator and the atheists used it anyway.

On a side note - I tend to approach the 'everything has a creator' differently by claiming that nothing has a creator - everything you see around you was merely assembled from energy/matter that was already there and that nothing seems to indicate that mass/energy as a whole had to 'come out of nothing somehow'.


Well the issue that some may see with the idea that "God is the creator of all." is those of us who have seen cars built or other things built that they were created by the machines and hands of laborers and the inventors. For example, most people know that a rock by itself did not have a creator in the sense of anything intelligent. Most theists may even say, yes rocks are formed out of the earth by lava/pressure and so on. However, I have heard theists claim "Rocks did indeed have a creator. God created the universe, of which earth is part of, of which the rock is part of that. Therefore, God created the rock." This might be where some atheists may jump on theists saying that everything did not have a creator, even if the particular theist may not have claimed that.

This is an unfortunate part of debating/discussing with theists as especially Christians (though they are all guilty of this) their concept of their religion may very well be unique or shared by far less than they think. This can lead to atheists to try to anticipate when they are arguing with someone an argument they may make (because they have heard it before) , only to have the theist be able to jump at them saying "I claimed no such thing." I suspect this is why Matt on AETV says he wants people to call in and tell him what they believe and why. Easier to start with what they specifically believe (and the reasons for it) then trying to anticipate the generic arguments that many of us have heard before.
GizmoIscariot
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:57 am
Location: Riverside, CA

Uh, who knows?

Postby dobbie » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:39 am

>byStenlis: 1. Just because you cannot explain the origins of the creator doesn't mean that there isn't one.<

But it doesn’t really advance the discussion. In fact it's a topic shift.

Besides, saying “Just because you cannot explain the origins of the creator ...â€
dobbie
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:31 am
Location: California

Re: Uh, who knows?

Postby BahRayMew » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:49 am

[quote="dobbie"]>byStenlis: 1. Just because you cannot explain the origins of the creator doesn't mean that there isn't one.<

But it doesn’t really advance the discussion. In fact it's a topic shift.

Besides, saying “Just because you cannot explain the origins of the creator ...â€
BahRayMew
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 3:40 am

Re: Uh, who knows?

Postby DukeTwicep » Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:12 pm

[quote="BahRayMew"][quote="dobbie"]>byStenlis: 1. Just because you cannot explain the origins of the creator doesn't mean that there isn't one.<

But it doesn’t really advance the discussion. In fact it's a topic shift.

Besides, saying “Just because you cannot explain the origins of the creator ...â€
DukeTwicep
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:45 pm

Previous

Return to New Arguments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron