Athiests - how many of you think that these examples of Athiest arguement are equally legitimate?

Question

I will keep playing with fire but here we go

Point 1 I am not a Christian
Point 2 I am English

neither are relevant to the question but they seem to keep geting in the way.

Arguement 1 - The idea of God is the same as a Sky-fairy

Arguement 2 - The belief in God is the same as belief in Santa Clause

Arguement 3 - The idea of the FSM points out some of the holes in ferverent religious belief

Arguement 4 - The belief in the invisible pink unicorn points out some of the paradoxes within religion

All have been used on these pages - I do not believe all to be equally valid as interlectual points for athiest belief (forgive me for inadequate use of terms). I do not want to know whether you believe in God or what you think of believers. Just how useful these particular theories/thoughts are in furthering discussion and enlightenment - if you will allow me to use that term here.

I am trying to ask a genuine and respectful question please answer in the same manner .

If that is not enough clarification I am never going to ask a decent question

Nicholas H didn't read whats underneath properly did you?

Dont have an issue dear - just got trounced a couple of times and got sick of hearing from the agressive (militant - I will get people to understand what that means lol) population (actually sick of hearing the agressive population of everyone atm - got a militant pagan on one of the boards recently - sigh) I even saw a bunch of militant bhuddists on tv recently and am actally quite offended by that one - I'm not usually easily offended (only if you assume I'm Chiristian or American with no evidence). But I'm off point sorry.

Hoped to get a few of the athiests like jim out on the boared but i just riled you lot up, sorry bout that and maybe I should add I'm dyslexic again so my spelling and grammer are pretty much double dutch. Sorry bout that to but there isnt much I can do about that either.
I am beginig to agree with you on the santa arguement - I havnt heard that one exlained properly before - Thank you chuck that is what this is all about.

Two more points - I am sorry you find my definition of a 'militant' athiest offensive I was just going with the dictionary definiton for a word that explains a concept i was trying to get across. I dont know what to do if you define the word differently from my dictionary - I honestly dont think I can help that.

The other thing is that I do use the spell check where it is provided - but there isnt one for the answers - I do reread my post but I just dont pick up on everything I honestly do try though cause I know it really annoys some people and detracts from the question.

I meant questions - sorry again (sigh)

Answer 1

I'd say the "sky fairy" thing is a bit overused and not quite as eloquent as the FSM or IPU. I like the FSM because it gives personality to Russell's teapot. Now we don't just have mysterious floating china... we have something with eyes and appendages and an amusing name. We put a face (one made of pasta, but all the same...) on the proof that "well, if you can't prove me wrong then I'm right" is a silly, worthless argument.

I'd say the Santa Claus analogy is actually quite spot-on. As children, we believe absolutely in this thing that doesn't exist, but when we are told by our parents that it exists, when we see after school specials for it from September to December, when the stockings are set out and the cookies and milk are left for him, it becomes almost unthinkable that Santa doesn't exist.

But we have to let go. We have to grow up and realize that the books and the legends and what we feel and what we "knew" amounted to a tradition, a silly, unecessarily perpetuated tradition.

Answer 2

In furthering discussion and enlightenment not so much. That's not always the goal.

In what way is the delusion of the FSM less credible than one in "God"? That's the point of those arguments, and it's valid. Yes, it's not likely to further discussion and sugar coat things for the delusional, but sometimes it's better to end the conversation when the religious whackos are getting out of hand and overly ridiculous.

Edit : "maybe I should add I'm dyslexic again so my spelling and grammer are pretty much double dutch. Sorry bout that to but there isnt much I can do about that either."

There certainly is something you can do about it. Use the Spell Checker that Y! provides, as a matter of courtesy to those who read your questions.

btw, I call myself a militant atheist. Meaning, I try to forward the agenda of atheists, instead of being passive and wishy washy. Or indifferent towards religion. Your definition of militant atheist is downright offensive and insulting.

Answer 3

Well saying that God is a sky fairy isn't really an argument. It's just phrasing the same concept a little differently, so that people will examine how ridiculous it is. Personally I think it's a pretty stupid thing to say, since it's generally interpreted as an insult to theists (not unreasonably) and people don't listen to you if they think you've insulted them.
Arguments 2, 3 and 4 are essentially the same. They all present beliefs generally accepted as false, with the idea being that these ideas have the same level of evidence as religion. These are valid in that they reinforce the idea that the existence of such beings cannot be disproved. They demonstrate that the onus of proof is entirely with the believer.

Answer 4

I think you made your question very clear.

If enlightenment is the ultimate goal, most of the arguments above miss the point, because they are all trying to present valid parallels for a belief system that has no real equivalent in fairy tales, since in most cases they cite a fantasy being who can make wishes come true. Most Christians don't seem to see their God that way at all - and different Christian groups see their God in differnt ways.

There may be a better argument to present if you compared the Christian God to a compilation of more than one fantasy being - protector/punisher/wish granter and still, you would have difficulty reaching any kind of enlightened agreement.

I can't personally see that they are useful arguments to further enlightenment, perhaps they might generate discussion, but to what end? Believers will have faith regardless, as they are entitled to do, and non believers, equally entitled, will maintain their own status quo regardless.

I hope that made some kind of sense LOL

Answer 5

Each of these is exactly the same. God does not exist, which is the same as a sky-fairy, Santa Claus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and invisible pink unicorns. None of them have any unique characteristics or particular arguments that are representative of them more than the other. They are simply examples that are inserted into the arguments for God, useful to show the ludicrous nature of those arguments.

Somehow you seem to have gotten the notion that each of these arguments are disconnected, when they are, in fact, simply restatements of one another. I hope this clarifies the confusion.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 6

The purpose of those arguments is to show people how silly it is to believe there is some kind of God. I want to ask you something. If 50 billion people believe something and have many old stories written about it, does that make it more true than 10 people believing something else? The answer is clearly no, that is why it is pointless to use # of people and religious doctrine as claim that a God is more provable than the FSM. I think believers are usually good people, however I think Atheists are morally and rationally superior. This is because of the statistic that there is a smaller percentage of the Atheists in jail right now than the percentage of Christians in jail right now in the USA. Plus Atheists tend to make decisions based on there own intellectual thought without an old book directing them. For example, I'm absolutely sure that less Atheists are morally against people being Gay than Christians because we know that all species, outside of humans, have a similar percentage of gay individuals as humans do. This makes us more rational people. We generally believe that because our decisions and ideas are based on observable, provable facts, we are us much less 'evil' than any religion. Lastly, we don't 'need' a God to be a good person, or to be alive. I do not believe in God and here I am writing this answer for you. Hope this answer helps.

Answer 7

Firstly dont tell people what to write. If you tell people not to write garbage they will do it more anyway.

I think the analogies are valid for the evidence arguement against Christianity. Lots of people just grow up and believe everything their parents or society tell them. Christianity is no exception, people are scared to question it because of the guilt that is installed into its premise that if you dont beleive you will go to hell when you die. Its not nice, not rational but a very powerful way of getting people to do what you want.

Answer 8

It's ATHEISTS not athiests.

Arguments 1 and 2 are valid.
Argument 3 is an example. It doesn't necessarily point out anything.
Ditto goes to Arg. 4.

No such thing as atheist... uhm... "athiest" belief.

Answer 9

The idea of an omnipotent creator god is illogical, which can be explored by the interested individual, per Buddhist teachings. It's a Tibetan Buddhist pov... Gelug lineage.

_()_

Answer 10

Well I think they are all valid. I don't think that 1 & 2 are really as good of arguments though because the religious can just roll their eyes.