Three Arguments Atheists Aren't Allowed to Use Any More

[jaynie]

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.

It's worse than that, even. Apparently a billboard with just the word Atheist on it was "too controversial". I don't know how you can be less confrontational than that.

[AnnieC 305]

OK, I have to go against point #2

http://mojoey.blogspot.com/p/bad-pastors.html

My in-laws used this argument just the other day. Why do people equate Priests with molesters and not teachers? Because when a teacher is caught they:

1) Lose their job

2) Get blacklisted from ever working with children again

3) Law enforcement is notified and an investigation is opened

4) The victims get the help they need.

When a Priest is caught

1) They get transferred to a fresh victim pool

2) Everything is covered up so parents don't know to protect their children

3) The police are NOT called. Evidence is destroyed and the victims are threatened if they say anything

4) The victims are shamed into silence and tormented over saying anything in the first place

[Minerva]

Well guys, Marc from Patheos says you're not allowed to use those points anymore, so I guess you'll have to find new ones. Respect his intellectual authority and ignore how badly-founded his arguments are, now. :naughty:

Ooh, I'm not an atheist, so I guess I can keep using them. Thanks Marc!

[Glass Cowcatcher]

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

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.

By "influence" I mean that the majority of Americans are Protestant. I think there's a tendency to look at Catholocism as a "Foreign" religion, especially now that there has been such an influx of Roman Catholic immigration, so many people would be, automatically, much more dismissive of reports of systematic abuse in the "native" religious denominations.

And, let's not forget that there actually are a lot of Protestant(FotF, NOM, whatever) pundits that, while they do not have direct influence over churches in the way the Vatican does, they often influence the content of Protestant churches, even government. Many of them actively frown on Catholicism.

Otherwise your comment is spot on.

[kb2]

I think there's a tendency to look at Catholocism as a "Foreign" religion, especially now that there has been such an influx of Roman Catholic immigration, so many people would be, automatically, much more dismissive of reports of systematic abuse in the "native" religious denominations.

I hadn't thought about the stigma Catholicism has. And I would agree it's true that Protestants as a whole have a greater influence on government.

[thoughtful]

Here's an . . . interesting argument against atheism.

Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.

Andy Schlafly

You tell 'em, Andy. :lol:

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=86359

[Glass Cowcatcher]

Here's an . . . interesting argument against atheism.

You tell 'em, Andy. :lol:

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=86359

Is Britain being taken over by atheists or Islamic immigrants? Pick a side already.

[slickcat79]

Here's an . . . interesting argument against atheism.

You tell 'em, Andy. :lol:

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=86359

It's my understanding that atheism is also on a fairly rapid rise in Spain, and yet they don't seem to have a problem winning world cups :think: I think Andy Schlafly should consult a neurologist ASAP.

[QAF_Rocks]

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.

I won't give him that one. In order to believe in the supernatural, you have to first be introduced to the concept. Now since our culture is brimming, nay, overflowing with supernatural concepts and creatures, children of course are introduced to them at a very young age. A child who has never been taught about ghosts or monsters is not going to have nightmares about ghosts or monsters. A child who has never been taught about gods or goddesses is not going to spontaneously start believing in gods or goddesses.

Babies are default atheists since they don't automatically or spontaneously believe in deities. However, that's not to say that babies' brains are not also primed for magical thinking and anthropomorphism. The two are quite easily compatible. Many young children even persist in believing supernatural things (like the monster in the closet) even when adults tell them not to believe. It doesn't mean the monster in the closet is real. It means that children are gullible, imaginative, and haven't quite figured out how the world works, what's possible and what isn't.

[QAF_Rocks]

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.

Thank you! Yes, that bugged me, too. These studies that are being referenced, the ones that say children are "naturally" religious, they're flawed because there's no basis for comparison. All of the children studied (even those with atheist parents) live in a culture awash with supernaturalism. You can't only study children in theistic cultures and then claim that children are natural theists. You have to have another group to compare them to, a control group.

In order to get accurate information on how/if/when religious belief materializes, researchers would have to do longitudinal studies on two groups of children: one raised exposed to theistic concepts, and one raised in a purely secular environment, with absolutely no exposure to gods, goddesses, rituals, prayers, magic, etc.

[QAF_Rocks]

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.

Heh, that sounds more like Zeus. :wink:

I don't think the argument is effective either, but I can see why people use it. That image wasn't created by atheists. The Old Testament deity has often been depicted that way, and it seems to me that many Christians do visualize their deity at least as male, given that they constantly refer to it as "he." Plus, the image of their god as a father, specifically, seems to be rather enduring. If they think of it as a fatherly man, it's not a big stretch from there to a bearded old man on a cloud.

[alba]

Here's an . . . interesting argument against atheism.

You tell 'em, Andy. :lol:

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=86359

Well, Scotland is roughly 70% Christian, a part of Britain, and have never actually made it past the first group stage of the World Cup, so I'm not sure his argument stands.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Ditto to the others re point #2. It's not the fact that deviants exist - it's the fact that the Church itself has a history of protecting the deviants instead of the victims, and preventing the abusers from being brought to justice.

To give just one very recent example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/world ... tican.html

Yes, the current Pope, being fully aware of all of the current scandals, still whined that a sovereign country would dare to enforce the law and not grant some special exception for the Catholic Church to sweep everything under the rug like it's traditional done have the "autonomy" to conduct its own investigation.

When was the last time a public school principal, for example, claimed that the local police had no authority to investigate abuse in a school?

[nutella addict]

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?"

First, I do agree with all of the arguments Christians are not allowed to use anymore, but I do want to point out that #3 can be a perfectly reasonable, curious question in a discussion between friends, rather than a challenge. I was genuinely curious about this point with one of my friends, and he was happy to explain (probably because I wasn't being mean and judgy-judgy or anything) that he draws a general moral code from a variety of different sources, like different belief systems and laws and gut instinct, and doesn't need to follow a specific religion or God just to have a moral compass. And we had a lovely discussion about various points of our moral codes, which were in fact almost entirely the same, except that I'm a wee bit more monogamous in nature. Now obviously I knew he must have a variety of sources (which did include many of the same ones I use), but I was genuinely curious as to WHICH ones. Does that make sense? It's the same question but a very very different setting, which I think makes all the difference.

I'd also really appreciate if atheists stopped dumbing down my beliefs to something like an old bearded man in the sky, because my beliefs are so much more than that. I also hate when they imply that because I chose to follow the same religion I was raised in, I either

1) don't know any better,

2) didn't look into any other religions,

3) was brainwashed, or

4) am stupid, naive, ignorant, or weak.

And please, do not make the mistake of assuming that just because I believe in a higher power I can't possibly believe in science. I freaking love science.

I had one guy in my Master's program who made all of those comments at one point or another, and it was incredibly hurtful and frustrating, and made it impossible to have real discussions with him. Of course I know most atheists are not like this, many of my best friends are atheists and they are not like that.

One of the reasons I love you guys so much is that you're all so accepting about different viewpoints, so long as they don't cause harm to others.

[Elle]

...

3. Prayer works miracles.

...

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."

Yeah, the 0.5% of "answered" prayers is proof of god's love, and the 99.5% of the time it's proof that god has other plans.... If god's gonna go along and do things according to these mystical plans, why bother praying at all? Why not just trust that his plans are for the best? Might not be the best for you. His plan for you might involve some gruesome death a la "1 lunatic 1 icepick" (don't look up that video, it's a snuff video and the guy in it...look up "canadian porn star murder video" to read articles if you want, it's a current thing). So praise him for using you to fill his sick glory?