Cosmo's Big Thread of Anti-Theism

[TimeWizardCosmo]

This thread will contain some of the interesting arguments I find regarding anti-theism in my adventures across the Internet. Each post will be either an argument/response format, or a link to an article with ley points extracted here for "searchability". Yay SEO.

At some point I'll organize this first post into a table contents and all that good stuff, but we're just starting out so you'll have to scroll and Ctrl+F. Sorry for your loss.

Since this is a pretty short first post, here's an awesome quote:

When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

 

[TimeWizardCosmo]

"Atheists are close-minded!"

Being open-minded does not mean accepting claims outright, it means demonstrating the willingness to consider new ones. An open-minded person is receptive to new ideas, opinions and arguments and wants to discover their real truth-value before accepting them. Atheists are generally very open-minded.

Unjustified belief in the supernatural does not automatically make someone open-minded and, conversely, disbelief – pending further evidence – does not automatically make someone close-minded.

Athiests simply do not usually exhibit gullibility or credulity (a state of willingness to believe in one or many people or things in the absence of reasonable proof or knowledge). They maintain a standard of evidence proportional to the extraordinary nature of certain claims. They are usually open to the idea of god, but so far unconvinced by any evidence or argument put forward to support it.

See also: The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan.

 

[Einstein]

Here is something to consider. Facts are verifiable. Beliefs are not!

 

[Khaos]

Here is something to consider. Facts are verifiable. Beliefs are not!

I have the belief that tomorrow will be Friday. I think tomorrow will be Friday. I could be wrong on that.

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Today is Thursday. Thursday, May 8th, 2014 to be exact.

 

[Einstein]

Here is something to consider. Facts are verifiable. Beliefs are not!

I have the belief that tomorrow will be Friday. I think tomorrow will be Friday. I could be wrong on that.

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Today is Thursday. Thursday, May 8th, 2014 to be exact.

The problem is belief usually isn't based in fact. But in this instance it is. I believe you have committed sacrilege.

But that's how it starts. You are convinced or taught to believe in facts. Then the same concept is taught to convince you that the unverifiable can also be a belief too. So the same word ( belief ) is used to describe what is real and what is not real. So Belief=Fact=Fiction. Nice equation. I believe this is how they justify the existence of black holes.

 

[Khaos]

Here is something to consider. Facts are verifiable. Beliefs are not!

I have the belief that tomorrow will be Friday. I think tomorrow will be Friday. I could be wrong on that.

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Today is Thursday. Thursday, May 8th, 2014 to be exact.

The problem is belief usually isn't based in fact. But in this instance it is. I believe you have committed sacrilege.

But that's how it starts. You are convinced or taught to believe in facts. Then the same concept is taught to convince you that the unverifiable can also be a belief too. So the same word ( belief ) is used to describe what is real and what is not real. So Belief=Fact=Fiction. Nice equation. I believe this is how they justify the existence of black holes.

Ah another crazy person. You're just like that HDRKid dude. Sits there and denounces science yet works on HDR units and uses things made by science... computers, toasters, pencils, even tennis shoes.

What is entirely hilarious is you sit there and denounce black holes when...

Black holes were first identified in Einstein's general relativity

Unless your username and avatar is some sort of satirical parody of Albert.

 

[Einstein]

I just pointed out how the educational system conditions us into belief systems. Does that make me crazy for catching them in the act?

 

[TimeWizardCosmo]

Assuming god exists, arguments against theist claims are illogical/fallacious.

Things can exist in different contexts: God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god.

When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference. For example:

God exists.
Therefore, you should worship god.

Simply because a god may exist, does imply said god requires worship. In fact, a perfect god should, by definition, require nothing. This is known as a non sequitur.

“There is nothing more telling of a person’s fundamental lack of perspective and humility than an insistence that if they cannot reconcile their beliefs with reality, then reality itself must be wrong.” – Anonymous

 

[TimeWizardCosmo]

If God is the potter, who are we to say what he does with his clay?

Why would a perfect potter create an imperfect mold, order it to be perfect and then judge it based on the imperfections he gave it?

 

[TimeWizardCosmo]

Why not believe in God anyway, just to be safe?

This is known as Pascal's Wager, and has been thoroughly debunked ever since Blaise Pascal introduced it. Rationalwiki has an excellent page on the topic, as does Iron Chariots, but we'll go over some highlights.

• Which god? This assumption is a specific example of the logical fallacy of false dilemma. Humanity has worshiped between twenty-seven hundred and three thousand different gods since the beginning of recorded history, and those are just the ones we know about. The gods that could exist that we don't know are practically infinite. Pascal himself acknowledged the weakness of this assumption, and later explained he was only speaking in terms of the Christian religion.
  
  
• Assuming we somehow manage to choose the right god, how do we know we're worshiping that god in the correct way? There are many different sects of Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Christianity in particular has approximately forty-one thousand different denominations. Assuming that this god cares about being worshiped at all, how do we know we're worshiping him as he demands? If the Calvinists are correct it doesn't matter how you worship him, your salvation is pre-ordained whether or not you believe. If the Catholics are right salvation is only possible through rituals like communion and the last rites. If the Baptists are correct then only deliberate submission through prayer begging for salvation will do the trick. They can't all be correct.
  
  
• Assuming that we have the right god and are worshiping in the manner that god requires, why would this god accept a lie? No one can force themselves to believe something they don't genuinely think is true. Try forcing yourself to honestly believe that gravity is a myth and that you can float off your seat any time you wish. Simply claiming belief isn't the same as believing. If this god is willing to accept such a lie, how does that make it worthy of worship? If it's capable of being lied to, how does it qualify as a god at all?
  
  
• One should not believe in vampires in the fear that I might get bitten one day. It is irrational to believe something based on fear. Pascal's Wager is an appeal to emotion and says nothing about the validity of the claim.
  
  
• Pascal's wager assumes that if there is an existing god, that it rewards faith and punishes skepticism. There is no way of knowing that skepticism is the virtue being rewarded and that god does not punish faith and irrationality.
  
  
• Religion takes away time and effort as well as money. If the chances of god are exceedingly low, you have wasted your life. Atheism has a lack of religious restrictions, so in a sense, atheists are being rewarded. Religion as a whole does monstrous things to society, so even if there isn't a god, you still have a lot to lose. Atheism is the intellectually honest approach to the topic.