Theists & Atheists: What's an Argument that you Dislike from your own Camp? (And why?)

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don’t actually believe people are born believing in god, but that’s because I don’t believe gods exist. I don’t insist it is impossible though, just incredibly unlikely.

If you accept there is even a minuscule possibility gods exist, you must accept there is a minuscule possibility people are born existing in god.

Unless you think the only god that could exist has no magical powers, which seems to go against the definition of the term.

I accept that there are all sorts of miniscule possibilities -- including that I might be a billionaire who just doesn't know it -- but if the possibilities are that miniscule, my tendency is to ignore them. (And don't spend money I don't have!)

For example, if I jump off the Empire State Building in New York, there is a very miniscule possibility I might float gently to the ground. That possibility is so small, however, that I pay it no heed -- and head for the nearest elevator.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't care for the argument to view the Bible as literal. If you view it as literal there is much that exists that are not explained in the Bible or by that view of it. Some believe you aren't a Christian if you don't view it literally and even that book doesn't say you have to in order to be a Christian. I'm not too keen on my denominations views on science either.

 

[Augustus]

I accept that there are all sorts of miniscule possibilities -- including that I might be a billionaire who just doesn't know it -- but if the possibilities are that miniscule, my tendency is to ignore them. (And don't spend money I don't have!)

For example, if I jump off the Empire State Building in New York, there is a very miniscule possibility I might float gently to the ground. That possibility is so small, however, that I pay it no heed -- and head for the nearest elevator.

So to argue this requires one to definitively assert gods don’t exist, but those who promote it tend to insist they simply “lack belief” and make no positive assertions.

My point was that those that argue it generally are ardent in their insistence they simply lack belief in gods and aren’t making any positive claims.

I think those 2 beliefs are incongruous, if you don’t promote both then it’s more reasonable.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Let me explain:

I am an atheist. And I (obviously) find a great many arguments against God's existence to be compelling. But there is one that I don't: "The problem of evil." It's just that (in my estimation) even IF an omnibenevolent God existed, there could be a multitude of good reasons he would make the world as horrible as it is. Perhaps much of it could be explained by making the world more interesting, teaching human beings to enact justice, etc. Furthermore, if souls exist for all eternity, there are plenty of opportunities to make things right.

Long story short, there are plenty of reasons I'm an atheist... but the problem of evil isn't one of them.

But I don't want this thread to be about the problem of evil. I would like theists and atheists alike to do what I have done. Choose an argument from "your side" that you don't like for some reason or another and then explain why.

Try not to pick softballs or ludicrous arguments if possible. Try to select things that are popular among those who agree with your atheism (or theism). Many atheists agree that the problem of evil is a serious threat to an omnibenevolent God, for example. So that's why I picked that one. The problem of evil is no problem for me.

What's an argument often advanced by "your side" that you don't like?

The fact that atheist is a term.

The only reason the term is there is because of theists, and all their silly arguments made as to why there is a god.

 

[King Phenomenon]

I don’t dislike anything about god. He’s there for comfort, nothing more.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Argument ad populem

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The fact that atheist is a term.

The only reason the term is there is because of theists, and all their silly arguments made as to why there is a god.

Really? You think that atheists are making argument (silly or not) for "why there is a god?"

 

[Twilight Hue]

Really? You think that atheists are making argument (silly or not) for "why there is a god?"

No. Atheists never introduced the notion of a god. Ever. Its completely theists that started it all by proclaiming a god exists.

Atheism as a term and definition wouldn't exist If theists didn't first start things off through their proclamations.

 

[Koldo]

My point was that those that argue it generally are ardent in their insistence they simply lack belief in gods and aren’t making any positive claims.

I think those 2 beliefs are incongruous, if you don’t promote both then it’s more reasonable.

This relates to a small pet peeve of mine.
As much as I agree with most atheists that the lack of beliefs in gods is the hallmark of atheism, it sounds incredibly far-fetched when some atheists posit their perspective as if they had absolutely no beliefs regarding the non-existence of any culturally relevant god concept. I am not going to say that there are no individuals that have absolutely suspended judgments concerning the existence of all gods, but it sounds really off when those same individuals show strong opinions/beliefs over a lot of other things... It doesn't really make sense to me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No. Atheists never introduced the notion of a god. Ever. Its completely theists that started it all by proclaiming a god exists.

Atheism as a term and definition wouldn't exist If theists didn't first start things off through their proclamations.

Exactly right. Theists made a claim that ever since they have never been able to provide a single shred of evidence for, but insist is true.

One might have thought that intelligent people could look at that, and come to a rational conclusion. Except, of course, that the plain fact is that people are only very rarely rational.

Welcome to humanity. Willkommen, bienvenue.

 

[an anarchist]

Choose an argument from "your side" that you don't like for some reason or another and then explain why.

Well, I guess "my side" is just me so I'm thinking of an argument that I use to convince myself that I don't like.

Hmmm...

Well, I guess I don't like the argument I use most to convince myself.

That I've experienced a higher power, therefore I know there is one.

Perception is fallible. Face to face with God, one must question their sanity if they are to be logical. To see is not to believe.

 

[dybmh]

I dislike the claim that God does not have emotions or attributes. It goes against scripture, and I don't see how it can be ruled out with any certainty.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Any effort to argue for the existence of God using logic or reason is doomed to failure imo. Not because it is illogical or unreasonable for an individual to believe in divine agency, but because these are not the tools by which conscious contact with a Higher Power can generally be effected. You can’t prove God by argument, and it’s futile to even try. You can show by example, the benefits of a life lived according to spiritual principles. And you can suggest a person try prayer and meditation as a route to God. That’s pretty much all you can do imo, the rest is up to the individual.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Any effort to argue for the existence of God using logic or reason is doomed to failure imo.

Agreed. But you've also given up on thoroughly logical people ever being convinced of God's existence. Are logicians unworthy of God-belief? If so, why? What makes them unworthy?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Agreed. But you've also given up on thoroughly logical people ever being convinced of God's existence. Are logicians unworthy of God-belief? If so, why? What makes them unworthy?

It’s my belief that no one is unworthy of their creator. I believe we are all children of a loving God, and it would be most unreasonable to assert that the child is ever unworthy of the loving parent. Or that the work of art is unworthy of the artist, if you prefer that analogy.

I also believe that we have a tripartite existence (a concept found in many faith traditions, though not all). Being comprised of mind, body and spirit, if we don’t learn to nurture all three we may easily become unbalanced. Over reliance on satisfying the material needs of the body carries obvious hazards. And an excess of spiritual zeal can lead to the sort of ascetic extremism which the Buddha supposedly rejected. And over reliance on the intellect can persuade us that we have no need even to acknowledge the spiritual aspect of our existence.

This last is the dilemma the reasonable man may create for himself; it had been said that a person can never be too stupid to find God, but she can be too clever.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You can’t prove God by argument, and it’s futile to even try. You can show by example, the benefits of a life lived according to spiritual principles.

But notice something important in these two sentences: "a life lived according to spiritual principles" in no way implies God.

See the French philosopher André Comte-Sponville's book: The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let me explain:

I am an atheist. And I (obviously) find a great many arguments against God's existence to be compelling. But there is one that I don't: "The problem of evil." It's just that (in my estimation) even IF an omnibenevolent God existed, there could be a multitude of good reasons he would make the world as horrible as it is. Perhaps much of it could be explained by making the world more interesting, teaching human beings to enact justice, etc. Furthermore, if souls exist for all eternity, there are plenty of opportunities to make things right.

Long story short, there are plenty of reasons I'm an atheist... but the problem of evil isn't one of them.

But I don't want this thread to be about the problem of evil. I would like theists and atheists alike to do what I have done. Choose an argument from "your side" that you don't like for some reason or another and then explain why.

Try not to pick softballs or ludicrous arguments if possible. Try to select things that are popular among those who agree with your atheism (or theism). Many atheists agree that the problem of evil is a serious threat to an omnibenevolent God, for example. So that's why I picked that one. The problem of evil is no problem for me.

What's an argument often advanced by "your side" that you don't like?

The arguments that annoy - and perplex - me most are atheists fanboying/fangirling/fanchilding religion: atheists who praise religion and theism, or atheists who adopt positions that are completely irrational without some set of religious premises (e.g. anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-trans, etc.).

... but why the hate for the Problem of Evil? It doesn't get you to "therefore no gods exist," but it's useful for "this belief system is inconsistent so I'm not going to accept it" or (depending on the theist) "all the theistic belief systems that you, random theist, think are reasonable are inconsistent so I'm not going to accept any of them."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Since I am neither one, that both sides tend to do religion as if it is only theistic.

 

[vulcanlogician]

The arguments that annoy - and perplex - me most are atheists fanboying/fangirling/fanchilding religion: atheists who praise religion and theism, or atheists who adopt positions that are completely irrational without some set of religious premises (e.g. anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-trans, etc.).

The one beef I have with religion is how brashly it makes its moral claims (anti-gay and stuff like that). I also take issue with how suspicious it is, how afraid it is, of sexuality in general. How it needs to name the man as master, women as subservient... how it fears femininity. How it fears homosexuality or anything different. I majorly take issue with that. Religion often blunders, not only with its statements about nature, but also with its moral statements. If you want to know more about reality, religion is the last place you should look.

But, otherwise, I fear I may fit the bill for being a "fanchild" of religion. As I just said, I'm not a fan of its irrationality, but, apart from practical or moral concerns, I find it fascinating. Religion, to me, is certainly one of the most curious and interesting of human enterprises. I can criticize most of it, but not all of it. Where I'm apt to fault religion is where it impacts sociality, especially with its brutish moral claims. I hate religion in that regard. But at the points where it DOESN'T coerce, control, or abuse I like to make an effort to view it fondly. Even concerning its falsehoods... its myths... Myths are dangerous when taken literally, but when taken figuratively, I think they can sometimes be helpful. And that is curious to me. How falsehoods can be helpful. And all of that feeds in to why I find religion to be one of the most interesting things humans do.

.. but why the hate for the Problem of Evil?

I don't "hate" the problem of evil. I think it's a good argument, in that it kinda forces theists to rethink and adjust their brash claims. Truth be told, I'm more interested in the problem of evil than your average bear. I like the problem of evil. But, in the final analysis, it must be pointed out that it fails to accomplish what it set out to do: disprove an omnimax God. It's worth tracing out the logical borders and saying out loud that this isn't a good argument.

One good thing the problem of evil does is teach theists to rethink things and be more careful with their claims. For that reason alone, I'm glad we've decided to keep it around. But it does have some weaknesses. And no atheist should be a coward about addressing those weaknesses.

 

[syo]

I'm a theist.

That god is Christian.