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

[vulcanlogician]

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?

 

[Augustus]

That the “default” position is to be born an atheist.

This presupposes there are no gods because if there were we could, in theory, be born as believers.

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.

Also any arguments that sees religion as a “primitive science”.

Or that religions were, in general, invented by devious charlatans to control the masses. These are little better than a lazy conspiracy theory.

 

[Debater Slayer]

That unjustified wars, bigotry, tribalism, and/or superstition would disappear if religions didn't exist or if the whole world were atheist. (I'm generally a Marxist myself, but I tend to bring up Marxism-Leninism as a counterexample to this.)

Religions, just like any other collection of ideas or ideology, can be employed for good or for ill, and they're neither monolithic nor uniformly good or bad. Overstating their role in the above problems while understating the effects of human nature, the economy, geopolitics, education, etc., does nothing to further our understanding of history or the present and only oversimplifies deeply complicated issues.

 

[Koldo]

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?

Hmmmmmm....

I think the worst argumentation line has to do with questioning the existence of Jesus.

 

[VoidCat]

That polytheism is better cuz theres different religions thus there must be multiple gods

 

[Eddi]

I think that the notion that all humans are born with a "God shaped hole" that is best filled by letting God in but can be filled by other things not so successfully is silly and simply untrue

 

[Altfish]

Atheism is a religion.

No, it is not.

 

[Koldo]

That unjustified wars, bigotry, tribalism, and/or superstition would disappear if religions didn't exist or if the whole world were atheist. (I'm generally a Marxist myself, but I tend to bring up Marxism-Leninism as a counterexample to this.)

Religions, just like any other collection of ideas or ideology, can be employed for good or for ill, and they're neither monolithic nor uniformly good or bad. Overstating their role in the above problems while understating the effects of human nature, the economy, geopolitics, education, etc., does nothing to further our understanding of history or the present and only oversimplifies deeply complicated issue

I think we missed the opporturnity of having something more beneficial replacing religion. Religion, at least in the West, is a force against skepticism overall. But I also find it deeply naive to assume it would necessarily have been anything better than what we have now in other areas. I am talking about the butterfly effect.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Atheism is a religion.

No, it is not.

But aren't you an atheist? If not, I might have mistakenly took you for one. haha

 

[Nimos]

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?

I would probably go with the argument against finetuning, that a multiverse could possibly solve this if there is an infinite amount of possible Universes, then ours would eventually occur.

I find it a weak argument as it is based on the assumption of infinite Universes, which there is absolutely no evidence for and at the same time it ultimately offers no better explanation than that of a God.

I don't think the argument is invalid, simply extremely weak.

 

[Augustus]

That unjustified wars, bigotry, tribalism, and/or superstition would disappear if religions didn't exist or if the whole world were atheist. (I'm generally a Marxist myself, but I tend to bring up Marxism-Leninism as a counterexample to this.)

Religions, just like any other collection of ideas or ideology, can be employed for good or for ill, and they're neither monolithic nor uniformly good or bad. Overstating their role in the above problems while understating the effects of human nature, the economy, geopolitics, education, etc., does nothing to further our understanding of history or the present and only oversimplifies deeply complicated issues.

I find it a bit odd that folk think that religions were invented entirely by humans reflecting human concerns yet are also uniquely capable of causing humans to do bad things they wouldn’t otherwise do.

 

[vulcanlogician]

That unjustified wars, bigotry, tribalism, and/or superstition would disappear if religions didn't exist or if the whole world were atheist. (I'm generally a Marxist myself, but I tend to bring up Marxism-Leninism as a counterexample to this.)

Religions, just like any other collection of ideas or ideology, can be employed for good or for ill, and they're neither monolithic nor uniformly good or bad. Overstating their role in the above problems while understating the effects of human nature, the economy, geopolitics, education, etc., does nothing to further our understanding of history or the present and only oversimplifies deeply complicated issues.

*winner frube*

 

[Koldo]

I would probably go with the argument against finetuning, that a multiverse could possibly solve this if there is an infinite amount of possible Universes, then ours would eventually occur.

I find it a weak argument as it is based on the assumption of infinite Universes, which there is absolutely no evidence for and at the same time it ultimately offers no better explanation than that of a God.

I don't think the argument is invalid, simply extremely weak.

Let me just say that I have a certain degree of respect for Deism that I don't have for Theism, simply because I see merit in the fine tuning argument that I don't see in any other argument in favor of God's existence. Am I convinced though? Nope, but I can understand why someone would.

 

[Altfish]

But aren't you an atheist? If not, I might have mistakenly took you for one. haha

I don't understand, what did I say wrong?

 

[vulcanlogician]

I don't understand, what did I say wrong?

Nothing. But I don't see many atheists calling atheism a religion, that's all. And, if you're atheist, you didn't properly respond to the OP. But if you're a theist, then you did.

 

[Nimos]

Let me just say that I have a certain degree of respect for Deism that I don't have for Theism, simply because I see merit in the fine tuning argument that I don't see in any other argument in favor of God's existence. Am I convinced though? Nope, but I can understand why someone would.

I would probably agree to some degree with that. Yet the finetuning argument in itself is a somewhat weird one I think. Because it is based on the assumption that it could be any different. Maybe the Universe is as finetuned for life as it is anything else, it couldn't be any different, kind of like a piece of ice, it exists in that state when certain conditions are met, if they ain't then ice won't exist and therefore it is not a question of whether it could be another way or not. Because it simply couldn't.

 

[HonestJoe]

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

All of them. I've never seen any point in introducing any argument for atheism, I don't even like the idea of it being a "side" or that being an atheist really means anything significant. You can make arguments against specific theistic beliefs or claims and you can certainly make arguments against any practical policies or rules based upon them, but that doesn't even require atheism.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That the “default” position is to be born an atheist.

This presupposes there are no gods because if there were we could, in theory, be born as believers.

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.

Also any arguments that sees religion as a “primitive science”.

Or that religions were, in general, invented by devious charlatans to control the masses. These are little better than a lazy conspiracy theory.

I think that's quite wrong, to be honest. Being born an atheist is equivalent to being born non-verbal. No child, no matter who its parents are, is ever born speaking one -- let alone 2 or more -- languages. But they are primed to learn them. If mom and dad speak French and English around the house, day in and day out, the kid will be bilingual. If nobody speaks to him at all before he is just a couple of years old, he will not acquire much of any language at all.

I honestly believe that the only reason anyone knows about the concept of gods is because they were taught that (I certainly was). In the same way, I honestly believe the only reason that anyone actually believes in the existence of gods is because they were taught to -- by those they trusted most in the world to protect and nurture them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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 Problem of Evil is only a problem for those who define their deity in a certain way. Certainly peoples who believed in gods that could be good, bad, indifferent -- that could help or harm -- would never have to cope with developing theodicies to explain why bad things sometimes happen to good people, or why good things sometimes happen to bad people.

So the PoE has everything to do with your own definition of God (always in the singular). BUT -- and it's a big BUT -- if you define your God as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, there ain't no way out of the problem.

 

[Augustus]

I think that's quite wrong, to be honest. Being born an atheist is equivalent to being born non-verbal. No child, no matter who its parents are, is ever born speaking one -- let alone 2 or more -- languages. But they are primed to learn them. If mom and dad speak French and English around the house, day in and day out, the kid will be bilingual. If nobody speaks to him at all before he is just a couple of years old, he will not acquire much of any language at all.

I honestly believe that the only reason anyone knows about the concept of gods is because they were taught that (I certainly was). In the same way, I honestly believe the only reason that anyone actually believes in the existence of gods is because they were taught to -- by those they trusted most in the world to protect and nurture them.

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.