We've all at one stage or another heard a overly simplistic Christian argument which tries to win us over with simple language but no actual evidence. A typical one goes something like this. "Do you believe something can be absolutely false? Yes, Then there must be the reverse which is an absolute truth. That is God therefore God exists"

What examples can we come up with for Atheism?

Here's mine. "Religion has evolved, changed and adapted with the times has it not? Yes "Then such change must come about because the people have changed" "Therefore evolution does occur.

Views: 337

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

[quote]I've never heard any of those arguments, the ones I have come across have either been somewhat well reasoned, or the typical circular logic. [/quote]

Really? but there are so many. I'll run through a couple more examples

Atheists believe that nothing can create something.
Without religion people would have no morals.

In both cases not only are the statements inaccurate but they also use simplistic language to mislead people. What I propose is using simplistic language to better explain atheism. Whilst dropping the use of arguments which can be refuted. a Good example of a simple argument which is easy to refute is "What created God" The statement whilst valid negates the whole point of God (At least in the Christian and Muslim sense) being eternal. So using an argument which overlooks a key piece of information is a bad idea. A better strategy would be to argue that without even a shred of evidence to suggest the existence of such a God we might as well be praying to a flying three headed monkey which farted the universe into existence after travelling backwards through time from the end of the Universe when he was born. We can't disprove the existence of the three headed money but does that mean it can't exist.
But there is evidence that the Universe is not eternal, existence in one form or another may be a whole other story.

Also the other arguments I posted were additional examples of theistic arguments in response to KB's statement that he'd never heard such arguments used. If that was unclear in my above post then I apologise.
One of my favorites is Do you believe in Math? Yes? Well you can see Math happen, but not Math its self JUST LIKE GOD!
As for simplistic Atheist arguments I would have to go with I'll believe it when I see it. Although that one sounds pretty valid to me.
Theist (usually a christian): Atheist, what if there really is a god? What then?

Atheist: What if that god is Bacchus and he's sleeping off a really good bender from just before 0 A.D. and when he wakes up, hung over, he's really ticked off that everyone is worshipping the false god of a bunch of middle-eastern goat herders?
Whoa Alex! I'll just quickly add that I usually get, "You just grew up in the wrong church" or some variation (the "not a True ChristianTM argument). Since I grew up in a fringe sect of Christianity (aka cult) they think my logical, valid reasons for disbelief are only because I had an unhappy childhood. Kind of pisses me off that they think my arguments have LESS weight because their religion is F-ed up. I tend to think it gives my complaints more validity, as I've seen the extremes of their own faiths put into practice.
I don't think arguing with a theist is worth the trouble or the time. You can plant seeds of doubt and if they are a thinking person then maybe.. just maybe.. you lean them in the right direction.

You can't turn a believer. They don't believe in reality.. and reject verifiable truths. I don't have to prove there is not a dwarf pink elephant in the trunk in my car so why would I waste my time.
For me arguments and discussions with theists always inevitably come up. I just can't deal with people telling others about biblical beliefs as if they were proven scientific facts when the contrary is true. Like you said if the person has enough intelligence, then planting a seed of doubt in their mind may be enough.

I skimmed through Alex's post but since I pretty much agree with it all I'm not sure there's much I can add to it. I'm just amazed that I got such a lengthy response to this thread.
One would have better luck debating with a brick wall, the mentality is about the same.
How about:
Existence exists.
Existence has always existed.
Nothing that exists can cause or explain existence.
Claiming that existence is made up of a disembodied consciousness with magic powers infinity years old and everything else isn't very compelling to me.
It sounds like you are equating atheism with evolution. I think that is a bad idea. The two are not even related, despite frequent attempts by Christians to equate them.
You're correct that atheist does not = evolutionist. But the ven diagram overlap is very large between the two distinct groups.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service