Failures in Atheist/Agnostic Arguments

[FirstSunday33ad]

Atheist and agnostic arguments against theology in general and Christianity in particular are terrible. There are a number of reasons, but based on my own experience, the eight worst are:


1) Ignorance: You don’t know your subject matter. You are arguing against idea that you don’t understand. You are claiming an alternate history without knowing what that alternate actually is. In the end your arguments end up being tedious and pointless as you lack any ability to conclude them with established points that can be backed up.

2) Assuming the part equals the whole: Guess what? All Christians do not think alike, do not interpret scripture alike and do not agree on the same conclusions. Hauling out Fundamentalist, Neo-Con, theology and treating it as standard orthodox Christian theology only makes you look bigoted. News flash: most Christian denominations no longer believe in a Hell of torment forever, most do not believe in the Rapture, many are not YEC and many accept the notion of the salvation of non-Christians following their own paths to righteousness.

3) Fanciful speculation: Where you lack knowledge, you substitute flights of fancy, maybe’s, could have beens and probably’s. Where those are lacking you attempt to negate your ignorance by claiming ignorance on the part of your opponent (“nobody knows, nobody can say, that information has been lost,). When that fails you fall back on “prove it didn’t” which is infantile.

4) Logical Fallacies: Has there ever been an atheist/agnostic argument that wasn’t riddled with logical fallacies? Strawmen, missing the points, generalized rules being applied to specific cases, special pleadings, poisoning the well, red herrings; the number of fallacies defies listing. Any student of logic would have a field day using Ath/Ag arguments for examples of fallacies. What makes this problem even worse is your seemingly absolute refusal to follow the rules of logic even when the fallacies have been identified to you. When you reply to an argument with a red herring and your opponent identifies it as such, the proper thing to do is not to repeat the red herring and accuse your opponent of being evasive; it is to acknowledge that you were off track and respond to the original argument.

5) Argumentative postures: This is a common enough problem that it deserves mention. You argue against positions and statements for which there is no argument. An example is arguments over textual and literary criticism. IF you accept that it is a valid discipline that works in restoring ancient texts, than you have to admit that it works in restoring the Bible texts. Yet, you will have extended debates with over points that are irrelevant, plainly obvious or with which you should be in agreement. Rule of thumb: just because a theist says it, that doesn’t mean you have to disagree.

6) Evasiveness: When you are asked a question that you don’t have an answer to, or if a point is made that seems to undermine your position you don’t have to run away from it. Yet evasiveness one of my more common experiences in debating atheists/agno’s. When that tactic is unavailable or fails you simply rephrase the question and throw it back at the questioner (Q: Why don’t you believe in God? A: Why do YOU believe in God).

7) Use of out-dated information or flat-out wrong information: Linking a reply to the Da Vinci Code or regurgitating information that had been refuted in the 1940’s is not a very convincing argument. Refusing to stop using this information when it has been pointed out that it is out-dated or wrong is evidence of the weakness of your argument.

8) Pretending you are taking a neutral position: Accept that if your opponent does not have evidence to support their position, this does not release you from the obligation of having evidence to support your own. The claim that you are taking a “neutral” stance is nonsense when you start with a belief that your opponent is wrong. A neutral position would state BOTH theist and atheist positions have to “prove” their statements and the one that is able to present the greater and most convincing evidence is the one that is most likely true. At the outset you must believe that both have the equal possibility of being true or false. Otherwise you are not neutral and need evidence to support your statements.

These are some of the more frustrating examples experienced in debating atheist/agnostics.

If you want to be more effective and convincing, you are going to have to improve your style. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.

[Crow]

Y'know, if faith and belief were all that easy to come by, why would God value it so highly?

If I were an atheist your arguments frankly wouldn't convince me. IMHO, y'all might be well served by observing how DX, Trout, Bill the Cat, Neil Unreal, and a whole host of others--sorry folks, there simply isn't room enough to mention you all--interact with atheists around here. Until you can show a bit of respect for their intelligence, listen to why they believe as they do, and discuss their reasons without resorting to a bunch of assertions of ignorance, evasiveness, and whatnot, they're going to write you off as a windbag.

[the_light]

Y'know, if faith and belief were all that easy to come by, why would God value it so highly?

If I were an atheist your arguments frankly wouldn't convince me. IMHO, y'all might be well served by observing how DX, Trout, Bill the Cat, Neil Unreal, and a whole host of others--sorry folks, there simply isn't room enough to mention you all--interact with atheists around here. Until you can show a bit of respect for their intelligence, listen to why they believe as they do, and discuss their reasons without resorting to a bunch of assertions of ignorance, evasiveness, and whatnot, they're going to write you off as a windbag.

It seems most do not think like you do - us naysayers are either stupid, defiant, or simply want to run from God so we can guiltlessly wallow in sins of the flesh.

Instead of "you know you're a redneck if..." jokes, we should start, "you know its an ad hom if...".

In this case, you know its an ad hom if... you can swap the words "Christian" and "atheist" in a rant, and the whole thing still makes sense. Minus a couple Christian-specific concepts, the OP fits the bill.

[wattsr1]

Atheist and agnostic arguments against theology in general and Christianity in particular are terrible. There are a number of reasons, but based on my own experience, the eight worst are:


1) Ignorance: You don’t know your subject matter. You are arguing against idea that you don’t understand. You are claiming an alternate history without knowing what that alternate actually is. In the end your arguments end up being tedious and pointless as you lack any ability to conclude them with established points that can be backed up.

2) Assuming the part equals the whole: Guess what? All Christians do not think alike, do not interpret scripture alike and do not agree on the same conclusions. Hauling out Fundamentalist, Neo-Con, theology and treating it as standard orthodox Christian theology only makes you look bigoted. News flash: most Christian denominations no longer believe in a Hell of torment forever, most do not believe in the Rapture, many are not YEC and many accept the notion of the salvation of non-Christians following their own paths to righteousness.

3) Fanciful speculation: Where you lack knowledge, you substitute flights of fancy, maybe’s, could have beens and probably’s. Where those are lacking you attempt to negate your ignorance by claiming ignorance on the part of your opponent (“nobody knows, nobody can say, that information has been lost,). When that fails you fall back on “prove it didn’t” which is infantile.

4) Logical Fallacies: Has there ever been an atheist/agnostic argument that wasn’t riddled with logical fallacies? Strawmen, missing the points, generalized rules being applied to specific cases, special pleadings, poisoning the well, red herrings; the number of fallacies defies listing. Any student of logic would have a field day using Ath/Ag arguments for examples of fallacies. What makes this problem even worse is your seemingly absolute refusal to follow the rules of logic even when the fallacies have been identified to you. When you reply to an argument with a red herring and your opponent identifies it as such, the proper thing to do is not to repeat the red herring and accuse your opponent of being evasive; it is to acknowledge that you were off track and respond to the original argument.

5) Argumentative postures: This is a common enough problem that it deserves mention. You argue against positions and statements for which there is no argument. An example is arguments over textual and literary criticism. IF you accept that it is a valid discipline that works in restoring ancient texts, than you have to admit that it works in restoring the Bible texts. Yet, you will have extended debates with over points that are irrelevant, plainly obvious or with which you should be in agreement. Rule of thumb: just because a theist says it, that doesn’t mean you have to disagree.

6) Evasiveness: When you are asked a question that you don’t have an answer to, or if a point is made that seems to undermine your position you don’t have to run away from it. Yet evasiveness one of my more common experiences in debating atheists/agno’s. When that tactic is unavailable or fails you simply rephrase the question and throw it back at the questioner (Q: Why don’t you believe in God? A: Why do YOU believe in God).

7) Use of out-dated information or flat-out wrong information: Linking a reply to the Da Vinci Code or regurgitating information that had been refuted in the 1940’s is not a very convincing argument. Refusing to stop using this information when it has been pointed out that it is out-dated or wrong is evidence of the weakness of your argument.

8) Pretending you are taking a neutral position: Accept that if your opponent does not have evidence to support their position, this does not release you from the obligation of having evidence to support your own. The claim that you are taking a “neutral” stance is nonsense when you start with a belief that your opponent is wrong. A neutral position would state BOTH theist and atheist positions have to “prove” their statements and the one that is able to present the greater and most convincing evidence is the one that is most likely true. At the outset you must believe that both have the equal possibility of being true or false. Otherwise you are not neutral and need evidence to support your statements.

These are some of the more frustrating examples experienced in debating atheist/agnostics.

If you want to be more effective and convincing, you are going to have to improve your style. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.

??


Regards, Roland

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Atheist and agnostic arguments against theology in general and Christianity in particular are terrible. There are a number of reasons, but based on my own experience, the eight worst are:

2) Assuming the part equals the whole: Guess what? All Christians do not think alike, do not interpret scripture alike and do not agree on the same conclusions. Hauling out Fundamentalist, Neo-Con, theology and treating it as standard orthodox Christian theology only makes you look bigoted. News flash: most Christian denominations no longer believe in a Hell of torment forever, most do not believe in the Rapture, many are not YEC and many accept the notion of the salvation of non-Christians following their own paths to righteousness.

I was going to offer a point by point response, but I figured I'd just single this out for irony.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Y'know, if faith and belief were all that easy to come by, why would God value it so highly?

If I were an atheist your arguments frankly wouldn't convince me. IMHO, y'all might be well served by observing how DX, Trout, Bill the Cat, Neil Unreal, and a whole host of others--sorry folks, there simply isn't room enough to mention you all--interact with atheists around here. Until you can show a bit of respect for their intelligence, listen to why they believe as they do, and discuss their reasons without resorting to a bunch of assertions of ignorance, evasiveness, and whatnot, they're going to write you off as a windbag.

If I were an atheist your arguments frankly wouldn't convince me. IMHO, y'all might be well served by observing how DX, Trout, Bill the Cat, Neil Unreal, and a whole host of others--sorry folks, there simply isn't room enough to mention you all--interact with atheists around here. Until you can show a bit of respect for their intelligence, listen to why they believe as they do, and discuss their reasons without resorting to a bunch of assertions of ignorance, evasiveness, and whatnot, they're going to write you off as a windbag. [/quote]

My “arguments” weren’t “arguments” at all genius they were objections. And I don’t give a load of donkey dung if they “convince” anyone of anything. That wasn’t the objective of the OP.

I respect intelligence but have contempt for illogic and laziness (such as “missing the point” which you have just demonstrated). If you are going to argue a belief, idea or philosophy is incorrect or wrong, it behoves you to understand something about it.

So cram your opinions where your brains are and keep them to yourself.

[wattsr1]

My “arguments” weren’t “arguments” at all genius they were objections. And I don’t give a load of donkey dung if they “convince” anyone of anything. That wasn’t the objective of the OP.

I respect intelligence but have contempt for illogic and laziness (such as “missing the point” which you have just demonstrated). If you are going to argue a belief, idea or philosophy is incorrect or wrong, it behoves you to understand something about it.

So cram your opinions where your brains are and keep them to yourself.

Hemorrhoids hurting???

I always thought that objections to arguments carried implicit arguments themselves?


Regards, Roland

[Ratnat]

My “arguments” weren’t “arguments” at all genius they were objections. And I don’t give a load of donkey dung if they “convince” anyone of anything. That wasn’t the objective of the OP.

I respect intelligence but have contempt for illogic and laziness (such as “missing the point” which you have just demonstrated). If you are going to argue a belief, idea or philosophy is incorrect or wrong, it behoves you to understand something about it.

So cram your opinions where your brains are and keep them to yourself.

Do you realize that many of the atheists here are former Christians?

[iceage]

Atheist and agnostic arguments against theology in general and Christianity in particular are terrible. There are a number of reasons, but based on my own experience, the eight worst are:


1) Ignorance: You don’t know your subject matter. You are arguing against idea that you don’t understand. You are claiming an alternate history without knowing what that alternate actually is. In the end your arguments end up being tedious and pointless as you lack any ability to conclude them with established points that can be backed up.

Your points could be a lot more convincing if you would have used some specific examples. These are wide sweeping generalizations.

Why not provide some samples from the published literature or even reputable agnostic/atheistic posters here.

2) Assuming the part equals the whole: Guess what? All Christians do not think alike, do not interpret scripture alike and do not agree on the same conclusions. Hauling out Fundamentalist, Neo-Con, theology and treating it as standard orthodox Christian theology only makes you look bigoted. News flash: most Christian denominations no longer believe in a Hell of torment forever, most do not believe in the Rapture, many are not YEC and many accept the notion of the salvation of non-Christians following their own paths to righteousness.

You are upset that agnostics/atheists are painting with a broad brush while your whole screed is doing just the same.

However note that the fractured state of Christianity and the transformation of Christianity through the ages is in itself an argument against its core truth. If there was a core truth a signal might be noticeable from the noise. As it is, the divergent and evolutionary bifurcation structure of Christianity is just like any other major religion.

Also I will point out that many of the doctrinal points you just made are considered heretical (and non biblical) by mainstream evangelical Christianity, such as the absence of hell and salvation via paths of righteousness. I won't argue these points but their are plenty of theist right here that will.

3) Fanciful speculation: Where you lack knowledge, you substitute flights of fancy, maybe’s, could have beens and probably’s. Where those are lacking you attempt to negate your ignorance by claiming ignorance on the part of your opponent (“nobody knows, nobody can say, that information has been lost,). When that fails you fall back on “prove it didn’t” which is infantile.

The whole Christian story is based on personal testimonies of which are not autographed and the witnesses have never been cross examined and you claim the skeptic is guilty of speculation?

The whole of Christian tradition is based on speculation and flights of fancy. For example, the claim that the all or the majority of the Apostles where martyred is marked with speculation and the claims are inconsistent and contradictory

4) Logical Fallacies: Has there ever been an atheist/agnostic argument that wasn’t riddled with logical fallacies? Strawmen, missing the points, generalized rules being applied to specific cases, special pleadings, poisoning the well, red herrings; the number of fallacies defies listing. Any student of logic would have a field day using Ath/Ag arguments for examples of fallacies. What makes this problem even worse is your seemingly absolute refusal to follow the rules of logic even when the fallacies have been identified to you. When you reply to an argument with a red herring and your opponent identifies it as such, the proper thing to do is not to repeat the red herring and accuse your opponent of being evasive; it is to acknowledge that you were off track and respond to the original argument.

Have you ever read McDowell and Strobel. These books are great handbooks for illustrating logical fallacies. For example McDowell's (and CS Lewis's) famous false dichotomy Lier, Lunatic or Lord. Or the false equivocation of the historical acceptance of Homer to the Bible.

The majority of YEC is based and sustained on logical fallacies.

5) Argumentative postures: This is a common enough problem that it deserves mention. You argue against positions and statements for which there is no argument. An example is arguments over textual and literary criticism. IF you accept that it is a valid discipline that works in restoring ancient texts, than you have to admit that it works in restoring the Bible texts. Yet, you will have extended debates with over points that are irrelevant, plainly obvious or with which you should be in agreement. Rule of thumb: just because a theist says it, that doesn’t mean you have to disagree.

Hoisted by your own petard, perhaps?

Added by Edit: I just read a few of your comments to other posters on this OP - and you claim the agnostic/atheist takes a argumentative posture? I am know wondering if you are trollish atheist just trying to make the theist look bad.

6) Evasiveness: When you are asked a question that you don’t have an answer to, or if a point is made that seems to undermine your position you don’t have to run away from it. Yet evasiveness one of my more common experiences in debating atheists/agno’s. When that tactic is unavailable or fails you simply rephrase the question and throw it back at the questioner (Q: Why don’t you believe in God? A: Why do YOU believe in God).

Not to be evasive but please provide some samples.

7) Use of out-dated information or flat-out wrong information: Linking a reply to the Da Vinci Code or regurgitating information that had been refuted in the 1940’s is not a very convincing argument. Refusing to stop using this information when it has been pointed out that it is out-dated or wrong is evidence of the weakness of your argument.

Da Vinca Code is fiction, a novel. I know of few thinking agnostics/atheists that argue from anything in the Da Vinci Code. The Da Vinci Code has beem parodied by agnostics/atheists.

Can you provide a single example of something that is rehashed that was refuted in the 1940's

8) Pretending you are taking a neutral position: Accept that if your opponent does not have evidence to support their position, this does not release you from the obligation of having evidence to support your own. The claim that you are taking a “neutral” stance is nonsense when you start with a belief that your opponent is wrong. A neutral position would state BOTH theist and atheist positions have to “prove” their statements and the one that is able to present the greater and most convincing evidence is the one that is most likely true. At the outset you must believe that both have the equal possibility of being true or false. Otherwise you are not neutral and need evidence to support your statements.

Not believing in the supernatural with out sufficient evidence is a neutral position, the default position.

Ironically this view is perhaps the most reverent position. Believing in primitive neolithic anthropomorphic superstitious concepts, updated and modernized in the iron age, is not very flattering to the godhead, the mind of God, that we just now catching a glimpse of via scientific progress of the last few centuries.

[the_light]

Do you realize that many of the atheists here are former Christians?

I know of atleast two that not only were "strong" Christians, but had "formal" Christian educations to boot...

[the_light]

Ironically this view is perhaps the most reverent position. Believing in primitive neolithic anthropomorphic superstitious concepts, updated and modernized in the iron age, is not very flattering to the godhead, the mind of God, that we just now catching a glimpse of via scientific progress of the last few centuries.

Amen! If you want to discuss the possibilities of a godlike sentience that is somehow beyond or "above" the universe, I could certainly optimistically speculate. However, when we start getting into the irrational and simplistic conceptions of gods found in today's religions... mmm... I'll make it abundantly clear that I'm rejecting that by calling myself "atheist".

[lao tzu]

My “arguments” weren’t “arguments” at all genius they were objections. And I don’t give a load of donkey dung if they “convince” anyone of anything. That wasn’t the objective of the OP.

Well, then, I suppose you can now declare victory and go home. You have succeeded in not convincing anyone of anything.

So cram your opinions where your brains are and keep them to yourself.

Whoops, I spoke too soon. You have convinced me of something after all. I now believe you have a pathological fondness for flinging excrement about your cage.

[the_light]

Whoops, I spoke too soon. You have convinced me of something after all. I now believe you have a pathological fondness for flinging excrement about your cage.

[Crow]

If I were an atheist your arguments frankly wouldn't convince me. IMHO, y'all might be well served by observing how DX, Trout, Bill the Cat, Neil Unreal, and a whole host of others--sorry folks, there simply isn't room enough to mention you all--interact with atheists around here. Until you can show a bit of respect for their intelligence, listen to why they believe as they do, and discuss their reasons without resorting to a bunch of assertions of ignorance, evasiveness, and whatnot, they're going to write you off as a windbag.

My “arguments” weren’t “arguments” at all genius they were objections. And I don’t give a load of donkey dung if they “convince” anyone of anything. That wasn’t the objective of the OP.

I respect intelligence but have contempt for illogic and laziness (such as “missing the point” which you have just demonstrated). If you are going to argue a belief, idea or philosophy is incorrect or wrong, it behoves you to understand something about it.

So cram your opinions where your brains are and keep them to yourself.

1. Your OP wasn't the only thing you've posted that I've ever read, nor the only thing I was referring to.

2. You've shown yourself far better than any could expose you.

[LGM]

Well, then, I suppose you can now declare victory and go home. You have succeeded in not convincing anyone of anything.

taoist,

What's the over/under for the number of days till FirstSunday's head explodes again?