Three Arguments Atheists Aren't Allowed to Use Any More

[Glass Cowcatcher]

[link=http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/05/3-arguments-atheists-arent-allowed-to-use-anymore.html]Three Arguments Atheists Aren't Allowed to Use Any More[/link]

 

Exactly what it says on the tin.

 

 

Quote

1. Babies Are Atheists

 

(blog author's opinion) Religion is an integral part of human nature. We are born with a belief in the supernatural. Children under 5, with no environmental or parenting influence, think religiously.

 

I'll actually give him this one, it's a stupid argument, but while I do think that it is human nature to believe in a higher power, I do not think that babies are born thinking in a specifically religious way, as he thinks.

 

The fun is in reasons 2 and 3.

 

 

Quote

2. Priests Rape Boys

 

This is a sell-out argument, right up there with HITLER WAS AN ATHEIST SO ATHEISM IS BAD! Now to be fair, the Internet-Atheist crowd hardly ever uses it as an actual argument. It’s just this awkward, religiously pasted bit of snark that ends every post about why the Catholic Church is the worst thing in the world...

 

Of course, there’s not a single sane Catholic in existence who would complain if you called out one of the priests who actually molested children. But the use of The Priest as a stereotype for “child molester†(I’m talking to you, r/atheism) is absurd.

 

As I’ve noted elsewhere, child-molestation is not a Catholic problem. It is a problem of Western culture in general....

 

A child is more likely to be molested by his parents, his neighbors, or family friends than a priest, yet there exists no stereotype about these groups...

 

Ugh. Where to begin?

 

Actually, in fact, many atheists--and in fact people of all religious persuasions--DO use this as an actual argument. While I do think that the Protestant churches have just as high, if not higher, rates of molestation than Catholic churches, and it speaks to their undue amount of influence that they haven't been scrutinized as closely, the blog author misses the point. They are not upset that the molestations happen by priests, per se, but that the hierarchical organization of the Catholic Church allows them to have access to their targets, and then protects them when the law gets on their trail.

 

Also, Hitler was not an atheist.

 

 

Quote

3. Light before the sun?

 

This is a fun one, so I don’t blame deez-online-atheists for making this argument to me ALL THE FREAKING TIME...

 

Alright, not to burst the first-grade science class bubble, but light is not solely the product of stars.

 

According to Big Bang Theory, the first recognizable particle to form after the Big Bang were photons. Photons are “a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation.†Light is the earliest product of the universe. This isn’t to say that the Genesis account should be taken as true science — this is to say it should be taken as true poetry.

 

Think: If you are an artist, and you want to create a painting, the first thing you need is a canvas. A canvas is the one thing all your colors, all your splashes and shapes, will have common reference to. It is the constant. Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity shows us that light is that constant, that canvas that makes up the geometry of spacetime.

 

But that’s all besides the point. While this whole argument might work well with Creationists, it sure as hell doesn’t work with anyone who paid attention in high school

 

What is this I don't even...?

 

I follow online atheists and I have NEVER heard this argument. I'm reasonably well versed in the lay version of quantum physics, as much as I can be without a degree, and I'm not even sure what he's getting at.

 

I think he's trying to argue that the theory of black body radiation proves the Genesis story, but doesn't realize that a) most black body light takes place outside of the visual spectrum, probably not what Genesis was talking about and there has to be matter to emit that black body radiation, so the light can't come out of no where, as he seems to think.

 

Fundies should learn that they usually sound stupid when they try to use science as evidence for Biblical beliefs.

 

Edited to unbork the quotes.

[CanadianHippie]

I've never heard an actual atheist use any of those arguments.

As for children thinking religiously, they don't. They don't think spiritually either. What they do is think like someone whose logic and thought processes have not been inhibited by "possible versus impossible". They may believe ghost, gods, the tooth fairy, etc exist because to a young child there is no reason why they can't exist.

[crassy]

I'm not a huge fan of any of those arguments because they don't actually prove anything, nor do they invite discussion or debate but merely act as smokescreens. But I can say that my 5 year old definitely does not think religiously at all.

[Sunnichick31]

Although we may not always turn to religion, humans are programmed to search for answers to everything in life. Some find answers in science, some in religion, and others spend their whole lives searching.

[Handmaiden of Dog]

My favorite argument for atheism is that what you believe is an accident of birth. Born 1800 years ago in Germany? You won't believe in a Christian God. Born 1000 years ago in America? You won't believe in a Christian God. Born 500 years ago in Japan? You won't believe in a Christian God. Born today but in the hills of Afghanistan? You won't believe in a Christian God. You might believe in a whole host of gods, you might believe in tree spirits, you might believe in a Mother Earth, but Christianity is just one, passing religion. Hopefully it will fade with time.

My daughter never believed in any God. She was born to an atheist.

[alba]

I've never heard an atheist use any of these arguments. They read to me like a fundie trying to refute atheism but being unable to genuinely engage with the arguments in its favour, so instead he makes up strawman arguments.

[Swamptribe]

I've heard atheists use one and three. But never as an argument unto themselves, but as a form of refutation to a silly argument used by Christians. The baby argument is used to point out that nobody is born believing in a god; instead that it's a learned behavior. The only time I've heard two being used is also as a refutation. In the context of 'Stalin was an atheist, so all atheists are evil'; so, atheist points out that there are Christians who have done horrible things too. To which Christians without thinking respond "They weren't true Christians". To which the atheist replies "Well, Stalin wasn't a true atheist".

[Swamptribe]

PS, Hitler actually claimed to be a Christian, not an atheist. Go figure.

[debrand]

I've heard people make snide comments about priests and little boys but most of the commentors weren't atheists. There is a reason for such remarks. A very large ongoing scandal has occurred because the Catholic Church tried to hide the fact that some priests were raping little boys. Until people see evidence that the Catholic Church has stopped protecting priests who do horrible things, there will be nasty comments. The only way to stop such comments is for the Catholic Church to do a very public house cleaning.

I can certainly understand why a dedicated priest would tire of defending his vocation but atheists are not the reason that negative perceptions still exist .

[debrand]

PS, Hitler actually claimed to be a Christian, not an atheist. Go figure.

He was brought up Catholic.

Some Protestants believe that a person who is truly saved will not do evil things. The only time that I've heard anyone use the Hitler argument was because a Christian first tried to claim that their faith did not produce evil people like other faiths and atheism does.

I think that the blog writers grip is not with the arguments themselves but with the fact that he can't counter them when they are used to refute something that he says.

[Guest Anonymous]

He was brought up Catholic.

Some Protestants believe that a person who is truly saved will not do evil things. The only time that I've heard anyone use the Hitler argument was because a Christian first tried to claim that their faith did not produce evil people like other faiths and atheism does.

I think that the blog writers grip is not with the arguments themselves but with the fact that he can't counter them when they are used to refute something that he says.

Hitler was definitely from a Christian background. He did, however, have a major problem with Christianity in that most of the people in the Christian Bible are Jews. The book is mostly about Jews. Jesus was a Jew and most of the good characters (Abraham, Moses, etc.) were Jews/Israelites. Even with that whole "they killed Jesus" nonsense, it would be hard to push such a wholly anti-Semitic platform while professing to follow the Bible. Hence the whole 'was Hitler a Christian?' / 'was he an atheist?' confusion.

Personally, I am an atheist but there is one atheist argument (more of a phrase, really) that really bugs me. I think that atheists should stop saying things like "Religious people believe in a magical sky wizard who sits on a cloud, has a long white beard, and zaps people with lightning bolts, etc, etc." I find this kind of statement incredibly annoying. It's inaccurate, facetious, and tiresome.

[debrand]

[deelaem]

1. Babies Are Atheists

(blog author's opinion) Religion is an integral part of human nature. We are born with a belief in the supernatural. Children under 5, with no environmental or parenting influence, think religiously.

Children under 5, and up to at least age 7, engage in magical, not religious, thinking. If they live in an environment that is religious, of course they'll give that context to their magical thinking. That's just as stupid "evo-psych" argument as saying that children are born with gender roles. That's impossible to determine unless they're raised in a gender neutral environment, just as it's impossible to say children who grow up in a religious environment naturally engage in religious thinking.

This guy reminds me of the Catholic version of Josiah.

[Patsy]

Hitler was definitely from a Christian background. He did, however, have a major problem with Christianity in that most of the people in the Christian Bible are Jews. The book is mostly about Jews. Jesus was a Jew and most of the good characters (Abraham, Moses, etc.) were Jews/Israelites. Even with that whole "they killed Jesus" nonsense, it would be hard to push such a wholly anti-Semitic platform while professing to follow the Bible. Hence the whole 'was Hitler a Christian?' / 'was he an atheist?' confusion.

I want to point out that whether he was personally Christian or not, and despite the fact that the Nazi party and its eugenics had some mystic nods to other traditions, Hitler was like this with the Catholic church.

[alba]

Children under 5, and up to at least age 7, engage in magical, not religious, thinking. If they live in an environment that is religious, of course they'll give that context to their magical thinking. That's just as stupid "evo-psych" argument as saying that children are born with gender roles. That's impossible to determine unless they're raised in a gender neutral environment, just as it's impossible to say children who grow up in a religious environment naturally engage in religious thinking.

This guy reminds me of the Catholic version of Josiah.

Yes. The atheist argument provided above is a very simplistic view. A baby or young child will not believe in the Christian God independently. People seek explanations for the world around them, and IMO that's where religion comes from.

I grew up in a secular household. When I was 5 I believed in Santa but not Jesus. Children don't have the same scientific or logical bounds on the explanations they accept, so what their parents or other adults tell them is what they'll believe when they're young.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

Fair enough, but then Christians may not use the following:

1. Pascal's Wager.

2. Using the Bible to prove the Bible

3. "But where do you get your morals?"

[Guest Anonymous]

I want to point out that whether he was personally Christian or not, and despite the fact that the Nazi party and its eugenics had some mystic nods to other traditions, Hitler was like this with the Catholic church.

Absolutely true. Even after the war, when Hitler was dead, the 'rat line' (the route that Nazi war criminals used to escape Europe and prosecution) could not have functioned without the approval and active participation of the Catholic church.

[slickcat79]

I've heard all three arguments used, but not always from atheists and not usually as a straight-up argument for atheism, but more of a specific debate. I think the third one is more common when debating with creationists or people who believe the bible as literal truth. It's one more minor example of the (probably hundreds) of ways that the bible tries to explain some natural process and gets it wrong. Plus it gets bonus points for not even being internally consistent.

Overall I think atheists would be willing to agree to toss out all of those arguments and not bring them up anymore...they're not really great arguments to begin with. Also most of them would be perfectly happy to let the believers in question continue believing whatever they want as long as they are not using those beliefs to determine the rights of others. As long as you are not advocating the bible as an appropriate guide for everyone's life, people won't be inclined to poke holes in that.

[Handmaiden of Dog]

Fair enough, but then Christians may not use the following:

1. Pascal's Wager.

2. Using the Bible to prove the Bible

3. "But where do you get your morals?"

Good! Here are my 3:

1. How can you see the sunrise (babies, rainbow, etc.) and not see the hand of God?

2. God speaks to me everyday and if you only opened your heart Jesus will speak to you.

3. Prayer works miracles.

1- I see nature and I see science at work.

2- I think you hear your own inner self speaking-- just like all those Republicans who ran for President because God told them to.

3- Prayer does not work. People have prayed for all sorts of things-- life of a loved one, end to war, money, food. There has never been any proof that prayer works and if prayer does not work the argument is "The person praying was not pure enough" "God works in mysterious ways" "God has other plans."

[Glass Cowcatcher]

I agree that calling the Christian god a sky daddy is not really an effective way to debate. Very few Christians believe that their god lives in the literal sky or that he zaps people with lightening bolts. The idea of a god who is all powerful, all good and all everything else is so full of contradictions that atheists don't have to resort to using straw men...

[Glass Cowcatcher]

Good! Here are my 3:

1. How can you see the sunrise (babies, rainbow, etc.) and not see the hand of God?

2. God speaks to me everyday and if you only opened your heart Jesus will speak to you.

3. Prayer works miracles.

1- I see nature and I see science at work.

2- I think you hear your own inner self speaking-- just like all those Republicans who ran for President because God told them to.

3- Prayer does not work. People have prayed for all sorts of things-- life of a loved one, end to war, money, food. There has never been any proof that prayer works and if prayer does not work the argument is "The person praying was not pure enough" "God works in mysterious ways" "God has other plans."

Good additions, especially Handmaiden's number 3. My mom is very well might loose sight in one of her eyes, even though she has prayed to the contrary.

Here are mine:

1. "Now that you have children, you'll eventually come back to God"/"how can you go through pregnancy and childbirth without seeing God in it?"

2. "Current events prove Biblical prophecies"

3. "You're just angry at god because of X traumatic event perpetrated by Not True Christians."

[valsa]

Same here. I think that unfortunately many prominent atheists (looking at you, Dawkins) unfairly dismiss the amount of thought many religious people put into their beliefs and take a very confrontational approach that does not help.

I actually love that many prominent atheists are "radical" atheists. Atheists are probably the most misunderstood, hated/feared group in American as a whole (one poll showed people would be willing to elect an openly Muslim president and an openly gay president before an openly atheist president) We need confrontational atheists just as much as we need non-confrontational atheists.

Hell, if billboards and buses with as benign a message as "You can be good without God" are protested against and vandalized, I don't think the non-confrontational approaches are helping a whole lot either.

[kb2]

Good takedown, GlassCowcatcher. I only slightly-disagree with this small part:

Actually, in fact, many atheists--and in fact people of all religious persuasions--DO use this as an actual argument. While I do think that the Protestant churches have just as high, if not higher, rates of molestation than Catholic churches, and it speaks to their undue amount of influence that they haven't been scrutinized as closely, the blog author misses the point. They are not upset that the molestations happen by priests, per se, but that the hierarchical organization of the Catholic Church allows them to have access to their targets, and then protects them when the law gets on their trail.

Because I think Protestant churches are saved by their accident of birth rather than influence. Although Protestant churches hold the majority of members in the United States, their influence is divided among many denominations and are just not seen as one big entity in the case of a scandal. Most Protestant abusers only have help/enablers as high as a single church hierarchy, so each abuse case is only seen as a problem of an individual church, not all of Protestantism or even a denomination. Protestants can look at abuse and say, "Not my church, not my denomination, not associated with me in any way." Scrutinizing Protestantism for abuse cases would be like building a sandcastle out of dry sand--you'd constantly have granules running away claiming they don't need to be included because their denomination/church wasn't involved. ...if that makes any sense. Although you may be interested in Dan Savage's Youth Pastor Watch on the Slog.

Also, SMBC sums up my feelings on this perfectly:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2234

If someone wants to be an ethical leader, I expect them to act more ethically than the general population. Otherwise, excuse me while I make my own way through ethical decisions.

Also also, why is abuse a problem of Western culture? I wasn't aware that Eastern culture was farting rainbows over there.

[MrsYoungie]

I still need someone to explain prayer to me. You pray to God to do something, but add "Thy will be done" at the end as a sort of Get out of Jail Free card.

Can God change his mind? Can he change his mind based on what I ask him? Why would he?

I once had a co-worker tell me that she believed in prayer because her mother prayed for XXX and it happened. I told her I wish for things and sometimes I get them - doesn't mean I believe in the power of wishing.

[thoughtful]

3- Prayer does not work. People have prayed for all sorts of things-- life of a loved one, end to war, money, food. There has never been any proof that prayer works and if prayer does not work the argument is "The person praying was not pure enough" "God works in mysterious ways" "God has other plans."

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

Enjoy.