Atheists - What attacks on Atheism Work Best?

[Meh Gerbil]

As an atheist, what attacks on atheism do you find to be most effective?

[Juvenal]

The one where y'all ask how we'd like to be killed by Hitler.

That's the best one.

I've never figured out an answer to that.

Second best has to go to arguments for an unnamed God that doesn't have any distinguishable features, doesn't do much, and doesn't much care how we feel about that. I think OBP likes to call that apophatic theology, a God you can only define by what It isn't. The more you know about what that God isn't, the more you know about God.

Personally, I'd go with arguments for a theistic god that shares some unnameable aspect with every other theistic deity ever proposed by mankind. Stay away from any details that can be checked.

And whatever you do, don't hitch your arguments to a book with a talking snake in the third chapter.

[Sea of red]

Difficult to say.

Nontheists are usually very taken by the fine-tuning and cosmology arguments. I don't personally put too much weight in them myself right now, and I think natural explanations will prevail in the end, but it is usually something that makes the typical nontheist stumble in a discussion.

Some NDE's are difficult to explain, so I can see that being a good argument. The relationship between the mind and the laws of nature IE: 'why are humans capable of understanding the laws of nature?' is something I've always found far more interesting than say, the Kalam cosmological argument. Arguments from beauty are sometimes attractive but professional philosophers seldom use it, and instead use outdated forms of the argument from design.

One thing not to use is the argument from morality. Its undoubtedly the weakest argument in the apologists arsenal, aside from advocacy of creationism - which you should definitely stay away form.

[Trout]

Good thoughts, sea of red.

[Meh Gerbil]

Personally, I'd go with arguments for a theistic god that shares some unnameable aspect with every other theistic deity ever proposed by mankind. Stay away from any details that can be checked.

To my way of thinking this seems weak.
What about it seems effective to you?

[Meh Gerbil]

Nontheists are usually very taken by the fine-tuning and cosmology arguments. I don't personally put too much weight in them myself right now, and I think natural explanations will prevail in the end, but it is usually something that makes the typical nontheist stumble in a discussion.

Could you be more specific?
Don't these just get waved away as "that's the way things are"?
Are there any ones in particular that strike you?

Some NDE's are difficult to explain, so I can see that being a good argument. The relationship between the mind and the laws of nature IE: 'why are humans capable of understanding the laws of nature?' is something I've always found far more interesting than say, the Kalam cosmological argument. Arguments from beauty are sometimes attractive but professional philosophers seldom use it, and instead use outdated forms of the argument from design.

I'll admit, I see no power in these whatsoever.
Never used them.

Clearly, what we often consider to be someone else's weakness says more about us then them.

[Sea of red]

A famous example of anthropric reasoning is Fred Hoyle predicting that the state of resonance of carbon-12 would be 7.65 MeV for carbon to be produced during nucleosynthesis.

[Roy]

As an atheist, what attacks on atheism do you find to be most effective?

Daesh's attack in Paris worked well, and the Bangladeshi use of machetes may prove successful.

For non-violent attacks, the JW approach of targetting individuals who are suffering depression or grieving for lost family is often effective. I recall hearing a military padre saying that he found the best time to talk to marines about religion was when they'd just completed a gruelling exercise or a series of long shifts on duty. Basically the attacks on atheism that rae the most effective are those that take place when the attackee is tired or distracted and thus not as capable of spotting flaws with the theistic arguments.

[Meh Gerbil]

Daesh's attack in Paris worked well, and the Bangladeshi use of machetes may prove successful.

For non-violent attacks, the JW approach of targetting individuals who are suffering depression or grieving for lost family is often effective. I recall hearing a military padre saying that he found the best time to talk to marines about religion was when they'd just completed a gruelling exercise or a series of long shifts on duty. Basically the attacks on atheism that rae the most effective are those that take place when the attackee is tired or distracted and thus not as capable of spotting flaws with the theistic arguments.

That's harsh but I've seen it happen.

[shunyadragon]

The one where y'all ask how we'd like to be killed by Hitler.

That's the best one.

I've never figured out an answer to that.

Second best has to go to arguments for an unnamed God that doesn't have any distinguishable features, doesn't do much, and doesn't much care how we feel about that.

Sounds like the God(s) of Pliny the Elder and Lucretius, and possibly some of the founding fathers of America.

I think OBP likes to call that apophatic theology, a God you can only define by what It isn't. The more you know about what that God isn't, the more you know about God.

Personally, I'd go with arguments for a theistic god that shares some unnameable aspect with every other theistic deity ever proposed by mankind. Stay away from any details that can be checked.

And whatever you do, don't hitch your arguments to a book with a talking snake in the third chapter.

Highlighted sounds close to the Baha'i argument for the existence of God.

[seer]

I'll admit, I see no power in these whatsoever.
Never used them.

What exactly do you use?

[Meh Gerbil]

Highlighted sounds close to the Baha'i argument for the existence of God.

The absurdity of this statement struck me.
Not your position, specifically (or that of the Baha'i) but rather the idea one would argue for the existence of God.

To my way of thinking God should be self-evident.

I've always found it odd to be in a position of arguing for the existence of God.

First, his existence has always been obvious to me (delusional though I may be).
Second, I feel like arguing that God exists isn't even my responsibility - I find it embarrassing to even attempt to make that sort of argument.

I feel as if the Bible doesn't argue for the existence of God but rather argues about the nature of God.

Part of the reason why you'll find me hanging out in the atheist's forum is because I don't see any threat whatsoever from atheists; however, I simply cannot abide the presence of certain unnamed branches (read: most) of Christianity because we've the same presuppositions and they attempt to use those commonalities to enslave me. I find myself not only on the internet but in real life hanging out with people I don't understand because the ones I do understand are too damn dangerous.

Anyways, arguing for the existence of God just struck me as ludicrous.

[Meh Gerbil]

What exactly do you use?

I always feel as if syllogisms are manipulative.
I've seen such much evil with that approach that I no longer care to convince anyone of anything.
It doesn't mean you've been evil with it, but I've been evil with it.

I've also found syllogisms to be so plastic as to be quite nearly worthless.
I used to place a great deal of faith in wit/speech/argument and now I think they've little use beyond entertainment value.

Now I usually just watch the horror around me and wonder about it.

[seer]

I always feel as if syllogisms are manipulative.
I've seen such much evil with that approach that I no longer care to convince anyone of anything.
It doesn't mean you've been evil with it, but I've been evil with it.

I've also found syllogisms to be so plastic as to be quite nearly worthless.
I used to place a great deal of faith in wit/speech/argument and now I think they've little use beyond entertainment value.

Now I usually just watch the horror around me and wonder about it.

It's funny, I may not be a Christian today if others did not preset a convincing argument. Though obviously that is not the only reason. It seems that you are apathetic towards the eternal fate of non-believers.

I feel as if the Bible doesn't argue for the existence of God but rather argues about the nature of God.

That is because just about everyone back then already believed in a god of some sort. Atheism was not that wide spread.

[firstfloor]

As an atheist, what attacks on atheism do you find to be most effective?

Religions take their victims when they are very young and impressionable – this is their best tactic by a long way. They have to work on the little kiddies because all their arguments are ridiculous. Atheism is defensive in nature against the harm caused by irrational magical thinking. Because it has had to fight hard for enlightenment it is robust once established in the adult mind.