A List of Unconvincing Arguments Made by Atheists

Related observation:
I’ve read many atheistic critiques of God belief and most include some notion concerning the lack of the evidence for a supernatural, omni being. I of course agree with this assertion: that absolutely no empirical evidence exists to suggest that God exists. However, that isn’t the primary reason for my atheism. The primary reason isn’t a lack of evidence, but rather the attributes associated with God. I simply think the idea of a being existing outside of nature (where the hell is he I never understood) that has intimate knowledge of human events to be quite absurd. My atheism is more a philosophical position rather than a stance born of scientific inquiry (although I’d arrive at the same conclusion following this alternate path).

Is there any other argument that atheists should not use that should be added to the list?

I don’t like it when we try to use natural disasters as proof that god doesn’t exist or that god isn’t good. My experience has been that most religious people do not believe that their god intentionally uses natural disasters to punish people/society. Most believe that such things are merely the product of natural geological processes and that god has nothing to do with it.

Now, I think some of them believe that god can actively save someone from a natural disaster, but that is an easy argument to win because you only need to ask why their god didn’t save every other deserving person as well? I just think that the natural disaster argument is too superficial when there are plenty of other fine arguments to be made.

Not A Blog,

This does not work, because the Christian does not disbelieve in these gods per se.

So they’re going to deliberately use a different definition? If that’s why the argument won’t work then there’s no point talking to them anyway. No argument is ever going to work if you say Zeus as king of the gods, and they think demon. They know what you mean, they decide to respond about something else on purpose. It might be pointless trying to logically debate believers, they’re always dishonest in my experience. Lets hope there are more undecided than polls suggest.

Is there any other argument that atheists should not use that should be added to the list?

I would add the whole argument of evidence is one that will rarely win over many Christians. To the science-minded, evidence is key. To many theists, watching the sunrise or looking at the stars, or witnessing the power in a hurricane all somehow prove their particular god is real.

When it comes to debating a theist with that kind of outlook, I’m sometimes at a loss because I try to piece everything together logically, and I see a big gaping hole of logic in their statements. My brain short-circuits.

I sometimes get annoyed when the Problem of Evil is presented for atheism. The problem of an omnipotent and omniscience being already presents problems in itself; I don’t really “reach” the Problem of Evil. The omnipotent/omniscience problem seems a lot less emotionally charged and pushes the factor of “your god doesn’t make sense” instead of “your god is an asshole” to the believer.

Here’s that omni problem summarized better than I could:
“Since God knows all, past present future, God must know his own future, past, and completely know his own self. Therefore, he knows exactly what his will is AS WELL AS precisely what actually will happen. Therefore, God does not have free will because, being outside time, he does not have the ability to make a decision that he has not already predicted infinitely accurately, so God does not have free will and is thus not all-powerful.—-
Therefore, logically, God (nor anything else) cannot be omniscient without becoming a slave to knowledge, and cannot be omnipotent without sacrificing knowledge of the future.” -donnyton on Iron Chariots forum

It seems to me that all arguments are bad when the theistic side of the discussion relies on faith as the basis for belief, knowledge and understanding. There is nothing that faith can’t trump.

They do believe that Zeus existed (or exists), but they believe Zeus is a demon.

I’m not sure Zeus is the best example, but many Christians believe in all kinds of hokey superstitious stuff. They just think it’s evil or satanic. That’s why they are afriad of Harry Potter and Ouija Boards.

I’m not sure I agree that the arguments listed above are always useless in talking with Christians, but I do agree with the premise of the piece which is that you have to understand the mindset of the Christians you are talking to in order to find arguments or stories that will move them and make them think. Arguments that are logical and make sense to atheists may not be the best arguments to use in a discussion or debate with a Christian. There definitely are ways to reach these people, but it’s not by having the most logically coherant argument. You have to use stories that touch the emotions and you have to make them think outside of their usually boundaries.

writerdd,

They do believe that Zeus existed (or exists), but they believe Zeus is a demon.

Zeus is not a demon, when people say Zeus they’re talking about a specific concept of a deity, something incompatible with being a demon. Zeus can’t be both a demon and an Olympian god. The statement “they believe in Zeus” is false when Zeus is defined as an Olympian god. Christians in the west know exactly what people mean when they say Zeus, and they don’t mean a demon.

They’re deliberately using a different definition to argue their point, the fallacy of equivocation. If it suites their God belief in another argument they’ll soon switch to the common definition of Zeus because these people aren’t interested in honest debate, they’re interested in defending irrational beliefs.

AJ,

I don’t accept that they don’t consider other religions as different and competing accounts.

It doesn’t matter whether or not you accept this. It is what Christians believe. They, do not, in fact, consider other religions as different and competing accounts. They consider them satanic.

They know that these myths are of a creation and deities that they don’t believe in.

Not so. They believe these other accounts are a deception of Satan, not a fiction invented by man or a “myth” in the literary sense. This distinction is extremely important.

You can make the argument that whether invented by Satan or man, the Christian still does not believe in them, but you’d be missing the point. The point is that all creation stories/religions have an explanation that is internally consistent with Christian doctrine. The fact that there is an explanation is the key, not whether not the Christian accepts a given version as truth or fiction. (Or even whether the explanation makes sense, for that matter.)

Christians do believe that Zeus existed and they believe he was a demon. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

Ted,
Your thoughts are well crafted and articulate, and I’m pleased by the overall positive tone you portray in having interaction with Christians. But I’m confused (or maybe you are) about your stated purpose for even having these conversations with Christians in the first place.

The two most common basic goals I have seen for atheists in such discussions are:
A. To talk about themselves, explaining the basis for their own view and possibly to dispute misconceptions and negative stereotypes that Christians have about atheists.

Or

B. To talk about the Christian, to convince them to abandon their beliefs in God or at least their beliefs in various parts of their creed such as young earth creationism, for example.

At the beginning of your post you say that these arguments are for purpose A, explaining to a Christian why an atheist does not believe in his God, etc. But the arguments seem to be designed for purpose B, to attack the Christian’s beliefs rather than to clearly explain your own viewpoint. Throughout the descriptions of the ineffective arguments and your suggested alternatives, you have statements about “convincing” them, “winning” the argument and “controlling” the discussion. The main thrust of your article seems to be about finding better ways to change their beliefs, either their core or peripheral ones, rather than helping them to understand how you see things.

I hope I have described the confusion clearly.

Personally, I am loath to partake in any discussion with Christians for the purpose of attacking their beliefs. I hate it when they try to evangelize me, so I’m not going to practice what I disapprove of on anyone else. I have little tolerance for the futility of that anyway. The only beliefs I would want to change in them are their false beliefs about atheists, or their justifications for intruding into five rooms that I want them to stay out of: someone else’s bedroom, the public schoolroom, the doctor’s office, the research laboratory and the halls of government. If they aren’t persecuting non-believers or trying to control others through manipulation of public policy then they’re welcome to believe whatever the hell they want. That’s none of my business.

I have had some success in creating better understanding about atheists but I tend to agree with Jonathan Swift when he said,

“You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reason himself into.”

So actually, many Christians do kind of believe in Thor and Zeus. They believe all these “gods”—false gods, really—were the work of Lucifer and his minions, not necessarily that they didn’t exist at all. Appealing to their disbelief of other gods is unlikely to work because within the framework of Christianity, there’s an explanation of their origins.

What? In order to be a Christian I now have to believe that Thor was a minion of Lucifer. I’m off to bang my head on a hard surface.

@AJ:

The distinction between a deception of Satan and man-made is important because it defines whether or not the question of existence is supernatural or natural.

The confusion arises because atheists approach with the default assumption of no supernatural existence at all, while Christians believe supernatural existence is, ultimately, all that matters. Atheists automatically assume Zeus was a man-made myth (natural explanation); the Christian does not.

Whether Christians believe in Zeus as described by the Greeks (they don’t, and I never claimed they did) or whether they believe he is a deception of Satan is not as important, because both explanations are supernatural in origin.

The Christian view provides a super-natural explanation for Zeus, and Christians do believe there is some entity claiming to be Zeus, supernatural in origin. (I paint with a broad brush for simplicity in discussion. Of course we can find ones who do not. Most do, I think.) I don’t believe in Zeus any more than I believe in God, because I don’t believe in the supernatural at all. Christians, however, do, and so to try and use one supposedly supernatural entity as an argument against another is ineffectual, regardless of which “Zeus” they ultimately believe in.

@James:

As I wrote in my original post, I will misrepresent some Christians. I make sweeping generalizations for two reasons: simplicity in writing and because I’ve found them to work most of the time. These things are clearly not true for all Christians, and readers shouldn’t assume they are.

@Richard Wade:

I think I understand the confusion, here. If it helps to know where I’m coming from, I’m an ex-Christian atheist writing for other atheists.

I don’t generally make a distinction between case A and case B, as you’ve described them. I think any given discussion will include both some give and take.

I have never engaged in an unsolicited debate. I’m not at all the type of person who will run up to a known Christian and start badgering them justify their thoughts to me. I agree completely: I dislike proselytizing, I don’t do it myself, and I frankly couldn’t care less what people believe until it’s knocking on my door.

That being said, if the discussion comes to me, I’ll gladly take advantage of the opportunity. These are more rare because I don’t go seeking them, but it’s happened a few times. Most debates I have are between myself and friends who are Christians (most of whom I knew before I deconverted). Since we’ve known each other for a longer time, there is a degree of friendly antagonism which you would not necessarily find when debating a stranger, and the approach is different.

My purpose in all situations, however, is not just to explain my beliefs, nor to try and change theirs. My goal I is to make them think. If my partner seems to be genuinely open about hearing my reasons for being an atheist, I’ll take them through my thoughts—hopefully in a way that makes them think about their own position. If they automatically assume all atheists are evil and attack me with fire and brimstone, I will not shy from trying to raise their level of cognitive dissonance. I don’t care if anyone believes in God, but I do care whether they’ve bothered to put any thought into their belief, or if it’s just the childhood default.

I don’t want to try and force anyone to deconvert. It’s a tough thing to go through. But if deconversion is the result of making someone think, I don’t apologize for it.

Zeus is not a demon, when people say Zeus they’re talking about a specific concept of a deity, something incompatible with being a demon. Zeus can’t be both a demon and an Olympian god. The statement “they believe in Zeus” is false when Zeus is defined as an Olympian god. Christians in the west know exactly what people mean when they say Zeus, and they don’t mean a demon.

Historically, the concept of a demon is of an intermediary between the actual god or gods and mortals (which at its inception did not imply that demons were evil). As such, demons were regarded as powerful beings capable of performing acts that could make them appear godlike. Thus, I don’t think the idea that the Greeks believed in Zeus because they didn’t realize that he was only a demon pretending to be a god while a Christian can disbelieve because (s)he realizes that Zeus is just a demon is necessarily illogical unless you can also prove that the idea of demons is illogical.

However, the argument can be patched by going a level higher up the rationalization chain: if the Greeks could mistake a demon for a god, how do we know that the Christians aren’t doing the same thing with their god-idea?

Other bad arguments?

How about the argument that omnipotence is self-contradictory? There are many perfectly valid answers to the question, “Can God make a burrito so hot, even he cannot eat it?” If I were a theist, I would answer, “No, he’s simply not omnipotent in that sense.” (I also think the omnipotence/omniscience contradiction fits in this category).

Richard Wade said:
I tend to agree with Jonathan Swift when he said,

“You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reason himself into.”

Good one. I agree entirely, Although, presenting rational arguments may have some subtle behind-the-scenes affect on their subconscious which may contribute to an emotional change of heart (or at least a change in behavior) about religion. The most direct benefit for rational arguments, though, is to give people who have had a recent emotion-driven deconversion something to “hang their hat on”.

Never before in English-speaking lands have so many atheists been able to voice opinions and engage in debate without fear of persecution. This is all good stuff! Thank God for the internet! 😉 Of course most of us do it anonymously just in case…

I’ll have to ask my “thumper” friends about Zeus. Not being raised Christian, I really don’t have any first-hand indoctrination about whether or not he should be considered a demon.

As others have already pointed out, the one you quoted is a very bad counter for a theist. The fact is – and he point blank says it – to make the statement viable (to them) you must make it NON-supernatural. That’s not playing by the rules. Neither is the semantics between not believing in other gods and believing them to be “devils”/”fallen angels” etc.

It’s semantics and it doesn’t – and shouldn’t – work.

Moreover, the last response is rubbish as well. His article is “Bad Atheist responses to Christianity”. The problem is the contradiction between his title and his premise. If the premise of these responses is talking to a believer, the claim has already been made: the believer believes in said god.

So, when the non-believer says you cannot prove it or says you need to prove it, they are merely stating the obvious because the claim has been made by the believer in the first place.

I am hopelessly bad at the arts. No one expects me to be able to draw, or write music, or dance, because my friends know that I’m not gifted in those ways. People pretty much understand that this is how the world works, and that artistic talent is not something everyone has.

So, is it really reasonable to expect that everyone is (or can be) by nature rational and logical? I really think it’s as much an native talent as anything in the arts, and not everybody is born with it. Maybe it’s time we stopped thinking of this as a basic skill that everyone just naturally has or can easily learn, because some people just plain don’t have the gift or the interest. It certainly makes it less frustrating for me to think of those people as untalented (or uninterested) in this area rather than stupid or stubborn.

Just to be clear, let me add the following caveats to forestall any misunderstandings about the above:

No, logic and reason are not the only way to understand the universe, but they are the only way to understand it logically or rationally. If you want to order something different off the menu, that’s fine, but there are no substitutions.

People who don’t take naturally to logic and reason could benefit from learning at least a little about it. I can appreciate art and music, even if I can’t participate, and those things enrich my life immensely.

Still, there’s no point in beating some people over the head with logic anymore than it would do any good to have someone lecture me for hours about music theory. It’s just a waste of everybody’s time.

Nick, I think you did misunderstand. I’m just saying it’s pointless to waste energy reasoning with people who are never going to get it. If they are doing no harm, leave them be. If they are doing harm, find a way to stop them that will actually work, instead of continuing to try reason on someone who has shown that he is reason-proof.

@Macht:

Can somebody please give me an example of a Christian who thinks Zeus or Thor or any other gods were “fallen angels?”

Almost every Christian I know believes this. This hardly makes it universal, but I’ve heard the explanation many times, most notably from my mother. She specifically told me that all the Hindu gods (and in later discussions all “false Gods” in general) were various demons.

I myself believed it for a number of years while growing up—well into my teens—until I threw out the entire system.

Kyle,

I think you’d be in the minority on the demon aspect…

Very possible. Likely even, considering the number of Christians I’ve personally spoken to comprise a tiny minority of all Christians.

Re: the contradiction between title and premise. I can’t address your point directly because I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. The title is “Bad Atheist Responses to Christianity” (sensationalist, as headlines are wont to be, and not to be taken as part of the argument) and the (unstated) premise is “these 5 responses atheists give to Christian arguments are ineffective.”

They’re not “bad” because they’re logically inconsistent or irrational or anything like that. They’re bad because they don’t work. (By “not working” I mean, they don’t advance the discussion in any meaningful way.)

Regardless, I think our discussion here has gotten a little bogged down in semantics and pedantic analysis of argument structure.

Don’t miss the overall point of the article: here are a series of arguments often used by atheists against Christians’ arguments, but are largely ineffective.

You can disagree about how effective you think them to be, or even whether or not any justification I’ve cited make sense, etc. I’d be willing to bet at least someone has even had success with one of these. It really depends on how much the Christian has thought about their own beliefs.

But my experience has been that these arguments don’t get people to think about their beliefs in a deeper, more rigorous way, which is ultimately why I debate anyone. I don’t care what anyone believes (to the extent it doesn’t interfere with my life), but I care whether they’ve given it serious thought.

These arguments do not cause this to happen, because Christians already have justifications in place to explain them away. If I’m wrong about this, as I may be, then disregard the article and continue using the arguments. You may very well be able to present them in a way which is convincing. I have not found them to be so.

Edit: I’m doing a follow up post on the Not A Blog this evening, to address a few of the concerns raised. You might be interested in stopping by. Hopefully I can clarify some details (although I’ll necessarily be repeating some of the things I’ve said here).

For what it’s worth, I’m from Lancaster, PA, which is predominantly Anabaptist: Amish, Mennonite, etc. I was brought up “interdenominational” which takes a bit from each of these. In a sense, it’s a slightly more liberal version of fundamentalism—though not by much. Atheists are actively discriminated against (I am not openly atheist); people who are gay are broken (actual quote); evolution is worse than wrong, it’s evil; all science is suspect; and thinking and non-biblical knowledge is dangerous.

In Lancaster, this type of Christian is very much the majority (about 70%), though not so much elsewhere, I realize. Odd is rather an understatement.

Ted said,

January 23, 2008 at 12:40 pm

For what it’s worth, I’m from Lancaster, PA, which is predominantly Anabaptist: Amish, Mennonite, etc. I was brought up “interdenominational” which takes a bit from each of these. In a sense, it’s a slightly more liberal version of fundamentalism—though not by much. Atheists are actively discriminated against (I am not openly atheist); people who are gay are broken (actual quote); evolution is worse than wrong, it’s evil; all science is suspect; and thinking and non-biblical knowledge is dangerous.

In Lancaster, this type of Christian is very much the majority (about 70%), though not so much elsewhere, I realize. Odd is rather an understatement.

Jesus Christ! How do you live? I’d have to move, before they try me as a witch or something. 🙁