Why is it that atheists believe they can *prove* their point with sophistry?

Question

Ever notice how atheists can never construct an affirmative case for their set of beliefs? Why is it that instead of building a positive case for their side, they look for minor inconsistencies and try to exploit them? If their set of values and beliefs has anything to offer at all, why is it that instead of stating an affirmative case they present *parrot* what other atheists say in the negative about religion, argue that such and so is an atheist so I must be right, or you can't prove that you are right?

ok, guys, here's exactly what i'm talking about. i never claimed to be a literalist in biblical interpretation. what atheistic defenders are doing here is proving the philosophical underpinnings of my point.

if you say affirmatively that there is no god, which is what you are doing when you claim to be an atheist, then the proof does lie with you. if you say there is no proof one way or the other and it is on the believer, whatever stripe, to prove their case, then you are an agnostic. make up your mind.

ok, a few things, individually

teamxtreme: is it attacking to suggest that atheists are using the same tools that they claim to revile?

kc: you are of course correct in stating that not all atheists are the same, for the sake of this discussion let's stipulate that the type of atheists i'm referring to are the Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris and Dickie Dawkins.

Punch: I don't need to reference Bible quotes to defend my version of faith, nor is good science a bar to my set of beliefs.

RH: interesting response, doesn't prove anything, but wanted to give you a shout out for playing on even terms.

Ian: is it any less ridiculous to assume that you are going to live a good life simply for the sake of living a good life because that's how you are genetically encoded?

Kelly: agree with you entirely about L. Ron's bastard religion. before going too far down the road with your sophistry argument, though, I'd suggest reading Dawkins and Harris's recent books, its all sophistry

two more:

grazie: i read the fabulous utopian, Sam Harris' book. His point clearly seems to be the christians have done bad things so they must be wrong. Dawkins is even more extreme than Harris, and his logical underpinning is even more sophomoric. At least with Sam Harris, one gets the sense that he is really trying to have a dialogue.

Rackham: I don't have any desire to evangelize to you. My point is not one of trying to convince you or other non-believers that you are wrong, I really don't much care whether you believe or not, and am not going to tell you that you are going to hell because you don't believe as I do... I'm not the judge or arbiter of whether or not your soul will be saved, or to put it a different way: it isn't my decision to make whether I see you in Heaven... I have atheist and agnostic friends, I hope that God is merciful enough to let them in and you for that matter... but it isn't my call

Answer 1

It requires fairly careful analysis to determine what is provable and what isn't. Noted Catholic theologian Hans Kung examined the matter in excruciating detail, and correctly concluded that neither the existence nor non-existence of god could be proven on the basis of logic or evidence [ref. 1]. (Not surprisingly, he chose the affirmative, acknowledging explicitly that it was a choice.) However, it IS provable from this that no theory of god can make any difference in the real world. As for evidence, there is no evidence of any sort to support any theory of god, and a considerable body of evidence indicating that there is no such thing [ref. 2].

Answer 2

Minor inconsistencies such as... a talking snake perhaps?

Or the fact that if the Universe is only 6,000 years old then how come we can see stars 10,000 light years away? The light shouldn't reach us for another 4,000 years.

When discussing a theory you analyse all the facts. In order for the theory to stand it must fit all the known facts.

The theory that the bible is a true and accurate account does not fit all the known facts because we know that many of the statements in the bible are false. Therefore the theory that the bible is accurate is also false. And by definition, so is any religion based on it.

No-one may be able to prove that god does not exist because it is not possible to prove a negative but we know there is no such thing as a talking snake, we know that the human race would have died out through birth defects if there were only two humans to start with, we know the entire planet was never covered by a flood, we know it is not possible to walk on water or turn water into wine (although conjuring tricks are possible).

It is therefore obviously incorrect to state that the bible is true. And the only source that tells us that there is such a thing as god is the bible.

In order to justify your beliefs as being based on anything more substantial than wishful thinking based on a fantasy then you must address these issues and explain them in terms of what science and common sense tells us, not what you'd like to think happened.

Atheism does not require "a set of beliefs". Atheism is much simpler than that. Atheists simply believe there is no such thing as god. If you believe otherwise then it's up to you to provide proof.

Answer 3

Can you see how you're trivializing the major inconsistancies in the bible? Can't you understand that we don't have a "set of beliefs" per say. We are all individuals who share an opinion on one topic - god isn't real. That's it, plain and simple. We differ from eachother in many ways, some of us are conservatives, some liberals, some are wild and hedonistic, others very traditional and more moral than most xians in their lifestyles. You really can't stereotype us, sorry if that's too confusing for you. How do you think we feel about our questions about those inconsistancies when all the answers we get are "Yall need to get Jesus or yer goin ta hell" or "Cor. 8:12 says...blah blah blah John 3:16 blah blah blah" Like we've never read the bible before. News flash : We know what's in the bible, and we don't like it, it makes no sense whatsoever. If you really think it does, than you haven't read all of it yet.

Answer 4

Okay, right from the top. I know of no one trying to prove any Atheist point.
Set of beliefs ???? You're condemning something that doesn't exist. Atheists have no set of beliefs, of course, anyone above the level of idiot knows that.
Just exactly what set of values do people who don't believe in Santa Claus have ? Because a person does not believe in some fairy tale, does not mean that he is in some group that has all sorts of rules and regulations.
You holies should think first, then question. Guys like you prove the point that non-believers are more intelligent.

Answer 5

Can you? Why must Christians prove there point with bible quotes. Can they not form a thought on there own? Why can they only parrot what the bible says instead of thinking what they think? They look for minor inconsistencies in science and say that's proof that science is wrong and god is right, And the negatives about atheism are all lies, so I must be right , or can you prove that you are?

Answer 6

Why is it that you don't read every single answer on yahoo answers that gives evidence to the contrary.

Besides we like to fight fire with fire, if you attack we won't make defensive remarks, we'll attack back and point out how all of your beliefs are ridiculous and full of inconsistencies, thus proving us to be the ones to come to logical conclusions more often.

Also because a lot of religion relies on Faith, meaning far from having any evidence, we as atheists fell you must justify your decision of accepting without criticizing, I don't put faith in invisible beings with infinite powers that are incomprehensible by man, who seemingly wants you to live a good life so you will be rewarded, OTHERWISE YOU WILL BE PUNISHED IN HELL FOR ETERNITY, simply because I'm not easily scared and at the same time bribed by ridiculous propositions.


Lastly, most of this so-called "sophistry" is actually satire, and is our way of showing how your arguments are extremely ridiculous.

Answer 7

Gee... you miss the point, entirely. First of all, there is no such thing as 'atheist beliefs'. There is no sophistry involved... there is only the idea that it makes more sense to be 'rational' than it does to base your whole world-view on the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of a bunch of ignorant Bronze Age fishermen and wandering goat-herders.

The atheist has nothing to 'prove'... it is only necessary to demonstrate the many reasons why religious belief is stupid and irrelevant. And don't worry... nobody is trying to 'convert' you to sanity... we are only trying to protect vulnerable and inquisitive minds who might otherwise be influenced by you. If you were not actively engaged in trying to infect innocents with your delusional mind-virus, you would never hear from atheists at all... ever.

Answer 8

The only use of sophisms I see around here is on those creationist websites that are trying desperately to debunk anything that contradicts their beliefs.... I have not seen the use of sophistry on the part of atheists in this forum.

A sophism is a specious argument used for deceiving someone. It might be crafted to seem logical while actually being wrong, or it might use difficult words and complicated sentences to intimidate the audience into agreeing, or it might appeal to the audience's prejudices and emotions rather than logic. The goal of a sophism is often to make the audience believe the writer or speaker to be smarter than he or she actually is.


See the difference?? the only groups that "seem logical while actually being wrong" are the creationist or ID people.. Atheists actually arent usually wrong when they choose to state something.... For example evidences of transitional fossils etc. The fact is it only seems like sophistry to you because you refuse to actually delve into all the mountains of evidence and references to scientific studies that support the views of atheists. Most atheists actually are smarter, they dont have to use deceit to make it seem so.

PS You want to know what sophistry really is?? Read Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard...

Answer 9

Same thing could be said for many Christian claims too.

Atheism is not its own set of beliefs. It is lack of belief in deities. I am a pagan and a Taoist and an atheist, I am not like logical atheists or Buddhist atheists or new age spiritual atheists. My values and beliefs are personal and do not belong to anyone but ME.

You mistake is assuming that atheists share the same subculture. We don't. We aren't this way because it 'offered' anything except maybe intellectual honesty.

Answer 10

Read a book! And not just the the book of myth and superstition you call the Bible. I can give you a whole list.

The easiest for most Christians, who aren't used to reading anything with actual facts and other opinions, is, 'Letter to a Christian Nation' by Sam Harris. It's easy to read and a short book.

Christian minds are usually closed and incapable of rational thought. So I imagine you'll ignore this.

Never mind, ignorance is bliss isn't it?