Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nelson on March 31, 2009 at 1:15am

i disagree. demonstrating how ridiculous their thinking is and making them think better, consider their statements before making them, is to be preferred over pretending that the argument is valid and then simply tucking tail and saying you'd accept the consequences.
it doesn't have to be done in a mean, strident, arrogant, or argumentative way but it's important to show how ridiculous the argument is.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by prolix on March 31, 2009 at 1:25am

I agree that atheists cannot pretend that an argument is valid. It honestly depends on the situation. I consider debating a theist somewhat of a game. Dropping little subliminal attacks against his reasoning in most answers, while still letting him believe that he is not being cornered. Like how in my above post I implied that accepting consequences for not believing is better than believing out of fear. He does not feel threatened yet still is presented with a reasonable response. But your right, we shouldn't pretend and tuck our tails. Never =)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on March 31, 2009 at 1:34am

see, but what why leave it up to them to grasp your subliminal hints? make well formed well reasoned attacks against their logic and their statements in a way that isn't arrogant or vituperative.
i too see it as a chess game but in chess you set up your moves, you make feints, you sacrifice pawns, and you move in for the checkmate.
specifically that response doesn't show them that they are just as likely as an atheist is, assuming a god does exist someplace somewhere, to end up the hell of that god in whom they do not believe nor worship.
the statement that accepting the consequences is to be preferred over believing out of fear doesn't refute the argument. what's more, your statement is ready to be refuted by the Christian who says, "i don't believe out of fear!"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by prolix on March 31, 2009 at 1:48am

heh, its not meant to refute the question. It's meant to block it. It's an invalid question. Also, the response "I don't believe out of fear!" is not a refutation, merely a defensive statement. If a theist said that to me, I would only shrug and say that I don't believe out of fear either.. effectively solidifying that the question is logically invalid, and pointless.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on April 8, 2009 at 3:00pm

i always ask the theists, before making an argument for their god, to make sure that the same argument can't be used to argue for the existence of another religion's god.
your point about how Zoroastrianism's Avesta and Scientology's Dianetics (for lack of a better analogue) provide the same quality of argument as the bible does for the Judeo-Christian god- which is to say no quality at all- is just the point i make.
if the bible is "proof" of the Judeo-Christian god then so is the Avesta "proof" of Ahura Mazda, the god of the Zoroastrians.
why they don't see this is incredible to me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rayven on April 13, 2009 at 7:46am

I don't recall a time when I have ever been wrong wait.....um yeah I am always right so that means you're the one that's screwed. Have a nice non-afterlife :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave R on April 14, 2009 at 5:17am

If I'm wrong, I'm harming no-one but myself, and I'll wear the consequences, whatever they may be.

For the record, I've yet to see:

a) an atheist crusade
b) atheist suicide bombers

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rocky Oliver (LotusGeek) on April 14, 2009 at 2:13pm

Your argument can be expanded to, "what if you're wrong? Isn't it better to believe, just in case?" This is a common Christian Apologetic argument known as Pascal's Wager, popularized by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal. It goes something like this:

"If god does exist, and you believe in Him, then you're in Heaven, and all is good. If god does not exist, and you do believe in Him, then what have you lost?"

The main argument against this "wager", and where it falls apart, is when you consider ALL of the gods out there. Which god do I believe in? Yahweh? Krishna? Buddha? Vishnu? L. Ron Hubbard? Some other god that I haven't heard of? How can I be sure I am believing in the right god? The odds are that I will pick the wrong one, so Pascal's Wager falls apart when considering the odds alone, much less any other higher philosophical arguments.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan on April 14, 2009 at 3:21pm

Nelson Explained Pascal's Wager in one of the first replies...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shawna on April 15, 2009 at 1:52am

With the thousands of gods and goddesses out there, what if *you're* wrong? What if Odin is the One True God(TM)? Or, perhaps, Ra? Or Vishnu?

ETA: Beaten to it, but the point remains.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by penispoopoo on April 22, 2009 at 5:29am

So what?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave G on April 26, 2009 at 11:46pm

They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page