|
Post by Bluefinger on Apr 4, 2009 15:22:49 GMT -5
I guess mine have to do with either Pascal's Wager, and any form it takes (example: "What if you are wrong?"), purely because I hate having to refute such a weak and simple 'argument' every time it is put forth.
I've had the "Oh, you are only young and just rebelling" thing thrown at me when I was at RR. That was funny... and the fact when they couldn't understand the difference between me being hypothetical and when I was stating fact was even funnier.
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Apr 5, 2009 16:03:32 GMT -5
"Wouldn't you rather believe that you're going to meet your loved ones in Heaven?" I mean, sure I'd rather not lose people I care about or meet up with people lost, Can't believe you missed the opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Apr 8, 2009 6:54:17 GMT -5
Stalin , Mao and Hitler used as examples bug me too. Hitler in particular bugs me because it's a matter of irrefutable historical record that he wasn't an atheist. As for Stalin and Mao, they'd have been complete bastards whether or not they believed in God.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Apr 10, 2009 18:58:56 GMT -5
Buzzardhut compiled a list of atheist arguments? Sounds hilarious. I can haz link plz?
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 10, 2009 19:09:32 GMT -5
Its somewhere in this forum actually.
Ironbite-you'll have to search for it I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Apr 10, 2009 20:00:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Apr 10, 2009 22:31:06 GMT -5
This list is actually kind of a let-down. At least ours is accurate to the shit they say.
|
|
|
Post by Redhunter on Apr 13, 2009 3:52:47 GMT -5
Stalin , Mao and Hitler used as examples bug me too. Hitler in particular bugs me because it's a matter of irrefutable historical record that he wasn't an atheist. As for Stalin and Mao, they'd have been complete bastards whether or not they believed in God. That pisses me off.
That one gets thrown around as if they were they were 'killing in the name of...' with atheism.
People are either religious or not religious, but people only kill in the name of a god, not in the name of a lack of a god. Might as well fault moustache wearers because of hitler and stalin, because "they had moustaches..."
Holy War, not Secular War. Army Of God/God's Army, not 'Army Of No God/No-God's Army. No one shouted, "Non-God save the Queen!" or sang, "Onward Secular Soldiers" or put on the "Armour Of Dawkins".
People kill in war FOR religion, for a god. Atheism is only fought for in the fact that it is a freedom, but it's never in the name of atheism just as it's not in the name of 'freedom of speech' perse but in a 'big ball of freedoms' which does include that one.
FFS, most serial killers are white christian males but that doesn't automatically damn all WCM's on that fact alone. It's demonizing and reaching for anything when there is not a valid argument. Gah...
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Apr 13, 2009 17:27:19 GMT -5
Every time I hear the Puddle Fallacy I want to kill everybody ever with a flamethrower. But then I restrain myself because God will smite me if I don't I am a decent human being. Also I don't have a flamethrower. It makes me crazy BECAUSE the answer to it is actually kind of a little complicated, and I know for a fact that the person spouting it doesn't have the intellectual capacity or desire to listen to and understand the refutation. And I can usually surmise safely that the person spouting it isn't the kind of person who will let me get through an argument without interrupting or otherwise making use of my social inhibition. So being right doesn't matter. Which is nasty.
Oh, and any variation of the shut-up-that's-why arguments, from anyone, including atheists. Because then it becomes an argument about me, not an argument about what is true. And for all the reasons expounded by Greta Christina in her Shut Up, That's Why post.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 13, 2009 18:54:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by John E on Apr 13, 2009 21:16:45 GMT -5
Every time I hear the Puddle Fallacy I want to kill everybody ever with a flamethrower. What's the puddle fallacy? I haven't heard of it before (at least not by name).
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Apr 13, 2009 21:46:49 GMT -5
Every time I hear the Puddle Fallacy I want to kill everybody ever with a flamethrower. What's the puddle fallacy? I haven't heard of it before (at least not by name). It's also known as the "anthropic principle" or "fine-tuning argument." My preferred title comes from a (cute) Douglas Adams quote parodying said fallacy:
|
|
|
Post by John E on Apr 13, 2009 22:59:48 GMT -5
Got it. I HAVE heard that one before, just not by that name. And yes, the puddle analogy is an excellent rebuttal.
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on Apr 15, 2009 5:03:26 GMT -5
That pisses me off.
That one gets thrown around as if they were they were 'killing in the name of...' with atheism. It's worth noting that, although Stalin was indeed an atheist, his conflicts with the Church came from the fact that he saw it as a threat to his own power. Any other organisation that would compete with the Communist Party for the loyalty of Soviet citizens would similarly find itself on his shit-list.
|
|
|
Post by kanonier on Apr 15, 2009 21:48:10 GMT -5
Got it. I HAVE heard that one before, just not by that name. And yes, the puddle analogy is an excellent rebuttal. It's actually not an excellent rebuttal, seeing as how it proves nothing. It's just one of these "witty" (MASSIVE sarcasm quotes) replies that theists use when they're losing an argument. It really annoys me, the way theists argue. They never give you a straight answer to basic questions, and I get a lot of this answer a question with another question shit.
|
|