Is THIS all it takes? (See below)?

Question

Yesterday someone posed the question of why it took Richard Dawkins 350 pages to prove the non-existence of god. In my answer, I said basically that I could completely defeat any claim the theists make with just two words:

Says you.

You claim there's a hell where sinners and non-believers will be tortured forever?

Says you.

Faith in the sacrifice of Jesus will earn you eternal life in heaven?

Says you.

Your bible is divinely inspired -- regular mortals were just taking dictation directly from God?

Says you.

With no first-hand accounts, no empirical, objective proof, it's all any of their arguments ever amounts to.

Says you.

I'm curious about what other short, to-the-point refutations (preferably just one or two sentences) other atheists use when dealing with theists. And to be fair to the theists: can you offer an equally succinct proof for your side of the argument, if your god is as omnipresent and obvious as you claim?

To Primoa-- "Cripple"? Besides showing your ignorance and intolerance, I think you're also mistaking Richard Dawkins for Stephen Hawking.

And to those who say to the atheists "Says you." -- We've got over 150 years of empirical evidence backing up our claims on evolution, geology, the origins of the universe, etc. YOU guys are the ones claiming to have an Invisible Sky Daddy, when your only proof is the third-hand accounts from a bunch of goatherders living in a Bronze Age backwater. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence....

Answer 1

Actually, says you sums it up quite nicely. Way to go. I usually say prove it.

Answer 2

Of course we theists can. The same awnser tecnic you use works our way too.

Atheists use a naturalistic point of view, while it seems to work relatively well while dealing in science's methodologies, it has, i think, an intrinsic bias (a big one): It postulates that a natural awnser for a fenomenon will always be more likely to happen than a supernatural awnser." And here is where I say:"says you"

who postulated the statement above? On what grounds? Science can't prove or disprove the supernatural, so I guess your grounds on denying all supernatural fenomenon would be:
1) A wrong view of science giving it caracteristhics it simply dosen't have. (which was what Dawkings did in 350 pages)
2) Faith (thats righ, Blind faith) in believing that there are no supernatural fenomenon and that what you see is all there is even knowing (and science shows us this very often) that our view of this world is very very limited...

I hope i made myself clear. This awnser required some long hard spelling words to be used and english is not my native language, i hope you understand my poit and forgive me for the errors.

paz de Cristo

Answer 3

I would only add that Says you does fit in there, but also says a billion people. Those billion may not agree on the same god, but they do agree there is a being that created us and that being is good.

I am not the type of person that says there is a God because I was brainwashed my whole life to just believe. Hey, I believe, but I could be wrong. There is as much evidence that says there is a god than there is that there isn't. And faith, people say step out of faith and believe he exists. Well, I can also do that and believe anything and be taken for a fool in many situations. There is a book written and a whole lot of people that believe, well, before you tell other people there is a god without a question, I think you need to be able to prove something more concrete.

Answer 4

I was raised Catholic then rejected everything and became athiest. Today I personally believe in a higher power, but what that power specifically is I have no idea. I tend to think it is a more amorphous concept rather than an all-knowing being sitting on a throne in the sky.
You have every right to your own beliefs as are others who feel differently, there is no need to argue the details we should all agree that what matters is being a positive influence on others and the world around us. Knowledge and understanding of our similarities is the key, not focusing on the differences.

And Corner....maybe you should have challenged your teachers cause it is well known that what is taught in our history books is not the factual or complete history of this country or the world. Blind acceptance of what you are told leads to a very small way of looking at the world.

Answer 5

Perhaps you're answering the wrong question -- well attacking the problem wrong. It's not a matter of disproving that one or more gods exist but convincing theists that there is no god(s). In this case "says you" will probably do little to convince anyone. Similarly pat, succinct "proofs" of a deity will do little to sway most average atheist's minds.

Answer 6

According to their bible, God drowned all the babies in the world (Genesis 6, 7, Matthew 24:37-39). What kind of people want to worship a god who drowned babies?

Answer 7

There is no scripture to support the idea of sinners & non-believers being tortured forever. Neither is there any scripture that supports enternal life in heaven. Before you start arguing the Bible, at least know what it says. Says me!

Answer 8

I like this line from the movie Nightbreed: "Who told you THAT?"

Another line I like is "And these other people say the same thing about their religion. Why should I take your word over theirs?"

Responding to atheists with "Says you" would work IF atheists were actualy making the assertive claim of "There is no God." I don't see that happening too often though. All the more often I see them just going about their business until somebody ELSE makes the claim "You need to follow this", in which case the burden of proof isn't on the atheist. Of course you can't judge a group of people by Y!A; people from all groups troll here.

Answer 9

I wish I would have known of this approach back in high school. Whenever the teacher said something I could just say "says you, I never saw it happen." And then just call the history text books fiction. Too bad common sense stopped me.

Answer 10

I didn't read the whole book, I found it to boring. In the one part, I couldn't figure out if he was making an argument for creation, or against it.