Refuting Theistic Arguments

[Ricardo]

In my view I agree with the idea that lack of evidence can be evidence of lack.  In the case of gods the lack of evidence does indeed approach the status of evidence of lack.  Personally I think the probability of there being any gods to be so low as to effectively be zero, just not *quite* zero.  So, I don't waste my time wondering if there are any gods, I simply choose to live my life under the assumption that none do exist.  In the unlikely event that some actual evidence ever gets produced in favour of some god's existence, then and only then I will review my opinion based on the strength of that evidence.  However religion has had thousands of years to come up with such evidence and so far all it has managed is self delusion, logical fallacies and sophistry so I'm not concerned that such evidence is imminent.

You know, if it weren't for the earphone pixies that constantly leave my earphones in knots whenever I leave them in my bag overnight I would agree with you. I don't have direct evidence they're there -- I've never seen any of them --  but I just know they're responsible and I curse them every time I get my earphones out. 

goblins need to prove and prove to you that they don't exist! I believe they will use the scientific method!

[Bluenose]

In my view I agree with the idea that lack of evidence can be evidence of lack.  In the case of gods the lack of evidence does indeed approach the status of evidence of lack.  Personally I think the probability of there being any gods to be so low as to effectively be zero, just not *quite* zero.  So, I don't waste my time wondering if there are any gods, I simply choose to live my life under the assumption that none do exist.  In the unlikely event that some actual evidence ever gets produced in favour of some god's existence, then and only then I will review my opinion based on the strength of that evidence.  However religion has had thousands of years to come up with such evidence and so far all it has managed is self delusion, logical fallacies and sophistry so I'm not concerned that such evidence is imminent.

You know, if it weren't for the earphone pixies that constantly leave my earphones in knots whenever I leave them in my bag overnight I would agree with you. I don't have direct evidence they're there -- I've never seen any of them --  but I just know they're responsible and I curse them every time I get my earphones out. 

 

[Ricardo]

 
 a theistic friend told me he has two arguments against atheism
1- “God is like love: you cannot prove it exists, but you know it is there”
2- “There are many things we cannot see, but we know they exist: air, bacteria, atoms, etc. It is the same with God. ”
How to refute these arguments? 

[Red_Cloud]

 a theistic friend told me he has two arguments against atheism
1- “God is like love: you cannot prove it exists, but you know it is there”
2- “There are many things we cannot see, but we know they exist: air, bacteria, atoms, etc. It is the same with God. ”
How to refute these arguments? 

With all due respect, that is just a downright silly statement!
You CAN see love. It can be seen in a look, and in a caress. We all have other senses in which we experience joy, hate, despair bewilderment etc. My beautiful dog doesn't believe in God as far as I know, but like we humans she knows what love is and she experiences it every day. Like myself, she doesn't need or desire any God.

[Davin]

 a theistic friend told me he has two arguments against atheism
1- “God is like love: you cannot prove it exists, but you know it is there”
2- “There are many things we cannot see, but we know they exist: air, bacteria, atoms, etc. It is the same with God. ”
How to refute these arguments? 

1- If god is like love, then god is only an emotion that we feel and would only exist so long as people are feeling it. If there were no beings to feel the emotion, then it would no longer exist. So is that the same with this god? If no one felt the god, would it no longer exist? Or is the god something more permanent and not so weak (very unlike an emotion)?

2- We can see air though. We know what it consists of. We know what air is. We can test for air, bacteria, atoms... etc. and we come up with objective evidence of all those things. Yet every time we test any testable claim for a god, it fails. Still believing in god is like still believing that maggots come from meat instead of from flies laying eggs.

Looking back on the claims made by believers, the more we understand about the world, the mores the claims made by believers in god have turned out to be false. In response to irrefutable evidence, believers have moved more and more of their "word of god" scriptures from being "absolute facts" to now being "analogies meant to be interpreted." At some point, you have to either decide that it makes more sense to abandon these faulty bases and come up with a more stable world view, or ignore reality by continuing to waste time trying to make the unreliable scriptures make sense.

[xSilverPhinx]

 a theistic friend told me he has two arguments against atheism
1- “God is like love: you cannot prove it exists, but you know it is there”
2- “There are many things we cannot see, but we know they exist: air, bacteria, atoms, etc. It is the same with God. ”
How to refute these arguments? 

Those are dumb arguments in favour of the existence of a god. 

1) As Davin said, love is an emotion, and exists as a subjective experience inside the head of people and other beings experiencing it, it does not exist outside of the brain.

2) All those are very easily measurable and exist in the natural world.  Quite frankly, that was the stupidest argument I've ever heard.

Take air for example, air has weight and mass. You can blow it into a balloon, fill your lungs with it...there are countless ways to demonstrate that air exists. You can actually see bacteria under a microscope. And heck, Germ Theory is just a theory, right? You can also measure atoms and "see" them using specialized instruments.

That argument is just so inane I don't even know what else to say.

[joeactor]

I turn my head for a minute and the forum is full of Brazilians!

Nothing to add to the conversation, but... Welcome, Ricardo!

[Magdalena]

I'm from Brazil ! I have never participated in an atheism forum! I hope to learn more about atheism! Can this forum also learn about skepticism?

Ricardo...Ricardito...Are you a religious person?
I ask because when you start a sentence with: "a theistic friend told me he has two arguments against atheism..."--It's like when I ask: "Is marijuana bad for you? I have "a friend" who wants to know. ...
So, are you a religious person? You sound like one.

[xSilverPhinx]

I'm from Brazil ! I have never participated in an atheism forum! I hope to learn more about atheism! Can this forum also learn about skepticism?

Ricardo...Ricardito...Are you a religious person?
I ask because when you start a sentence with: "a theistic friend told me he has two arguments against atheism..."--It's like when I ask: "Is marijuana bad for you? I have "a friend" who wants to know. ...
So, are you a religious person? You sound like one.

I was thinking the same thing. But I'll wait for Ricardo to own up to being a religious person or stop looking so much like an "undercover theist". 

Ricardo, Magdalena and I are skeptical you are an atheist. There's nothing wrong with being a theist -- we have theists who are regular members of this forum -- what isn't cool is pretending to be an atheist when in fact you are a believer. Are you really an atheist?

[xSilverPhinx]

I turn my head for a minute and the forum is full of Brazilians!

Prepare for the Brazilian invasion. Resistance is futile.

[Sandra Craft]

I turn my head for a minute and the forum is full of Brazilians!

Prepare for the Brazilian invasion. Resistance is futile.

I welcome our Brazilian overlords.  I'm hoping for tanning tips.

[xSilverPhinx]

I welcome our Brazilian overlords.

I'm hoping for tanning tips.

Come to Brazil!

[Icarus]

Back a few posts Ricardo implies that theism has not caused any serious harm to humans .  I disagree, especially when considering the behavior of some of the more committed Islamists.  Lopping the heads off disbelievers is kind of harmful. Genital mutilation, and flogging women for daring to expose their hair is also not cool.   Never mind the Inquisition when bodies were stretched on the rack or strung up on a gibbet.  Our very own early settlers were ultra religious but did drown some witches and roasted a few of them too.

[Ricardo]

I turn my head for a minute and the forum is full of Brazilians!

Nothing to add to the conversation, but... Welcome, Ricardo!

joeactor: thank you very much!

[Ricardo]

I'm from Brazil ! I have never participated in an atheism forum! I hope to learn more about atheism! Can this forum also learn about skepticism?

Ricardo...Ricardito...Are you a religious person?
I ask because when you start a sentence with: "a theistic friend told me he has two arguments against atheism..."--It's like when I ask: "Is marijuana bad for you? I have "a friend" who wants to know. ...
So, are you a religious person? You sound like one.

I'm an atheist agnostic! I have so many theistic friends! and do you have theistic friends or family?