An Atheist answers “20 Short Arguments Against God’s Existence”
This single-panel comic strip succinctly and adequately describes the bulk of my interaction with the other citizens of the Internet over the last couple of decades. If you think that this is an exaggeration, I’ll refer you to my wife, who will attest that we have had some version of this conversation many, many times. I simply have a strange attraction to correcting bad arguments and inane claims, whenever I see them. Now, since I am an avowed and outspoken atheist, one might think that this generally culminates in my conversing with the religious. However, I tend to spend just as much time correcting many of the lies, misconceptions, and really bad arguments that embedded themselves into the modern humanist/materialist/atheist subculture as I spend in debunking poor religious apologetics. The simple fact that someone’s end point-of-view agrees with mine does not make their claims right. Just like in High School math, it doesn’t matter if you stumbled upon the correct answer; you show your work because the process of finding that answer is more important than the answer itself.
To that end, when I saw a video called “20 Short Arguments Against God’s Existence,” by Hemant Mehta, posted on the Friendly Atheist blog, I knew I was going to have to respond.
1. There’s no evidence
This is actually quite untrue. There’s a good bit of evidence. Particularly anecdotal evidence from believers. This is a common mantra among atheists, but it’s a very bad one to utilize because it is blatantly untrue. When engaging in a persuasive dialogue with a believer, if one of your foundational arguments is as thoroughly untrue as this statement, it gives your audience a reason to immediately dismiss your position.
A better, more accurate claim would be, “I am not aware of any demonstrable evidence which is convincing.” This claim is honest, acknowledging that we don’t have complete knowledge and that there may exist something of which we are unaware. It also clarifies that we are referring to evidence which can be verified by outside parties, eliminating things like anonymous anecdotes and personal revelation from the mix. Finally, this statement acknowledges that some things which seem like good evidence to a believer are wholly unpersuasive to a non-believer– for example, the fine-tuning of the universe or current ignorance as to the process by which abiogenesis may have occurred.
2a. God doesn’t stop the evil in the world
Theodicy, or the Problem of Evil, has been a very common question in philosophy for more than two millennia. As such, it is a question which has been tackled by theistic philosophers and theologians for nearly as long. Unless you are familiar with this area of philosophy– particularly Alvin Plantinga’s work, which is extremely commonly cited by modern apologists– it’s quite likely that a believer will dismiss you as being uninformed on the subject.
2b. According to the Bible, God caused a lot of evil
3. Drowning everything alive is not a sign of love
4. The opening lines of the Bible are factually wrong
Firstly, arguing against the deity described by the Bible does not constitute a very convincing argument against theism, in general. At best, it might show that the Jewish or Christian conceptions of God are flawed. However, it says nothing at all about whether a God exists.
More importantly, however, is that most atheists tend to be wildly ignorant of the fields of hermeneutics and exegesis. They are so used to dealing with fundamentalist Christians who interpret the Bible literally that they are completely unaware that the majority of Judaism and Christianity has never thought this was the proper way to read the text. Atheists who are unfamiliar with hermeneutics are likely to be quickly dismissed by Christians with even a rudimentary knowledge of this process.
5. Prayer has never fixed anything physically impossible [to fix]
The follow-up question being, “Why won’t God heal amputees?” This is, again, an example of conflating a broad and general belief (“God exists”) with specific claims about that belief (“prayer to God can lead to miraculous healing”). Invalidating the latter does not necessarily invalidate the former. There are plenty of theists who do not believe in any miraculous healings.
Furthermore, the idea that the primary purpose of prayer is to request things for oneself from God is a common misconception on the part of atheists, and not one shared by the majority of theists. Yet again, displaying ignorance of someone’s beliefs often makes it very easy for them to dismiss your arguments, entirely.
6. There are thousands of gods you don’t believe in
Followed by, “What makes yours any different?” Given half an opportunity, a great many theists would absolutely love to tell you about why their god or gods are different from those claimed by others. This is especially true for anyone with even a modicum of apologetics training.
7. Where you are born determines what you believe
This is a particularly egregious fallacy. Noting that people in similar geographic areas tend to have similar beliefs says nothing at all about the veracity of any of those beliefs. This is a version of the argumentum ad populum fallacy, and we should strive to avoid fallacious arguments whenever possible, if our aim is to convince others of the rationality of our own beliefs.
8. Who created God? And how does your answer make any sense?
Once again, displaying one’s ignorance of the millennia of philosophy and theology regarding this question is not very likely to be convincing to anyone with even a modicum of experience in these fields. If you are not familiar with the concepts of non-contingency and eternity, or with the manner in which these concepts are applied to deity in classical theology, you really should not be asking this question. And if you are familiar with these things, you would not be asking this question.
9. Pediatric cancer
This goes right back to 2a and the discussion of the Problem of Evil. Again, if you are not familiar with the philosophy which has been done in this field, you are not going to be convincing to anyone, let alone strong believers.
10. Unconditional love shouldn’t come with a list of conditions
Similar to 5, Mehta is again conflating the general claim over God’s existence with specific claims about God’s nature. Commenting on the latter says nothing at all about the former.
11. Every single supposed miracle gets debunked
There are actually quite a few “supposed miracles” which have not been debunked. The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches tend to be particularly adept at listing such events. Amongst Catholic apologists, the Incorruptibles and Our Lady of Fatima are particularly popular. While it is far from convincing, to a non-believer, that these anomalous events were supernatural in origin, neither can it be claimed that these things have been clearly shown to be falsely portrayed (which is the meaning of “debunked”).
12. The 10 Commandments left off “Don’t rape” and “Slavery is bad”
Another instance of conflating the general and the specific, as well as another instance of objectionable interpretation of someone else’s beliefs. Generally, “your god doesn’t behave the way non-believers want a god to behave” is not the most convincing argument.
13. The movies and music that honor God are just awful
While there are some fairly prominent examples of bad Christian art, today, this claim is preposterously overbroad. Even as an atheist, I can absolutely proclaim that much of the best and most beautiful art ever produced has been religious in nature. If we are talking about music, it’s incredibly easy to find extremely good pieces which were written to honor God– Gregorian chants, classical and baroque pieces, choir music, gospel music, and much more. In film, focusing on a terrible movie like “God’s Not Dead” without acknowledging the magnificence of a movie like “The Ten Commandments” is simply willful ignorance.
14. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
15. No hide-and-seek game lasts this long
Radio waves. Gravity. Dark matter and dark energy. We don’t have to go far to acknowledge a number of invisible things which are almost certainly extant. It’d be better to compare the entirely undetectable with the non-existent, but I wouldn’t even recommend that unless two conditions are first met: your opposition has made the claim that God is entirely undetectable, and you are at least somewhat familiar with the arguments for and against Verificationist philosophy.
16. Science explains so much of what we used to attribute to a god
17. The more we learn, the less reason we have to believe in God
Scientific understanding of a phenomenon is not mutually exclusive with the attribution of that phenomenon’s explanation to a god. For example, the people over at the BioLogos foundation will completely agree with all of mainstream biology that the complexity of life can be understood through a combination of the blind processes of genetic variance and natural selection. Understanding the way in which it works does not preclude one from attributing the way in which it works to a god.
18. Explaining your mythology makes you sound crazy
Explaining that the Earth moves around the Sun to someone who has never heard it before sounds pretty crazy, too. Explaining that Time shifts and bends in accordance with an observer’s acceleration or velocity sounds crazy. Explaining that there is an infinite quantity of real numbers that are greater than 1 and less than 2 sounds crazy. “That sounds crazy” is not a particularly good epistemological qualifier.
19. If God didn’t exist, the world would look exactly the same
This is just blatant question-begging. Mehta assumes God is not necessary to the world in order to argue that God does not exist. One cannot claim to be supporting a more rational view than his opposition while supporting that view with logical fallacies.
20. If God existed, he would smite me right now
This is one of the most juvenile, ignorant, and fallacious of all the arguments which could be made against God’s existence. Making this claim is like declaring to your audience, “I have absolutely no intention of addressing my opposition’s beliefs in a fair and rational manner.” You might as well just stick your fingers in your ears and scream, “Nuh-uh!”
The Real Problem
My contention against Hemant Mehta’s “20 Short Arguments” is more than just the sum of its fallacious parts. The real problem is that even attempting to formulate arguments against the existence of God unnecessarily assumes a burden of proof which does not naturally belong to the skeptic. I do not believe in the existence of gods. If someone wants to convince me that some deity exists, the onus is on that person to support their claim. If I want to address the problems in a person’s specific case for the existence of deity, I will do so. However, the minute I try to extend that response into a more general claim about the ontology of deity, I am stepping beyond the role of a skeptic and into the role of a claimant. This is why I tend to steer clear of anti-theist religious antagonism. Why should I take the theist’s burden upon myself?
I do not burden myself with attempting to find arguments against the existence of unicorns or fairies or elves or ghosts or UFO’s. There’s no reason I should do so with God, either.
Every single argument used in the video is a straw man.
The video proves that atheism is irrational and so, use irrational means to justify itself.
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment, Silence of Mind. I’m always keen to reach out to new people!
I agree that the arguments presented in the video are terribly poor; however, it would be just as fallacious to claim that one atheist’s irrational arguments prove that atheism, in general, is irrational.
Obviously, as an atheist myself, I would dispute your claim that atheism is irrational.
This is actually a fallacy called “the fallacy fallacy”, wherein a argument is dismissed as incorrect entirely because it contains fallacies. A common example is –
A: “All cats are animals. Fluffy is an animal. Therefore, Fluffy is a cat.”
B: “That argument contains a fallacy. Therefore, Fluffy must NOT be a cat.” (Fluffy is a cat)
A poorly formed argument cannot prove or disprove the veracity of the argument’s subject. Never conclude veracity from an argument’s success. People can argue successfully for untrue claims and can argue unsuccessfully for true claims.
I take it that you subscribe to the notion that a person can lack an ontological belief after having been exposed to the concept.
I do. My usual analogy is the Jar of Sand.
Let’s say that a friend of yours takes an empty jar and scoops a random amount of sand into the jar. Without even looking at the product of her work, your friend declares that the jar contains an even number of grains of sand. You have now been exposed to the dichotomy: you know for a fact that the jar contains either an even number of grains or an odd number. The total number of grains cannot be both even and odd, and it must be one of the two. However, the fact that you do not believe your friend’s claim that there are an even number does not mean you therefore believe that there must be an odd number.
I’d say that seems more like an epistemological concern.
It’s certainly an epistemological concern, as well, but that doesn’t seem to preclude the ability to simultaneously reject belief in a proposition and its negative correlate.
You’ve very unkindly given me a lot to think about. At the same time however, how is it possible to lack a belief about other’s presentations of their god?
Honestly, it depends on the presentation and the claims made.
For example, if someone simply says to me, “God exists,” I can’t really formulate a belief as to the veracity of that claim, at all, because it is far too nebulous. I have no idea what that person means by “God.”
On the other hand, suppose a person says to me, “God is a single being in three persons which is immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, personal, and eternally unchanging, yet which also acts in the material world and judges mankind for its morality; and this God exists.” This gives me quite a bit more to evaluate and around which to formulate a belief. For example, I would content that this particular view of deity lacks cogency, and I would actively disbelieve in a “God” so defined.
In either case, I’m not going to assume any burden of proof until such time as it is necessary for me to do so. For example, I will support my own counterclaims against propositions made to me by another person. However, I will not proactively attempt to disprove the existence of some nebulous and ill-defined entity, as I see no way of doing so without falling into a straw-man fallacy as regards some theist’s conception of deity. If I were to proactively attack the concept of the Trinity, Jews and Muslims (for example) would consider the argument a straw-man. If I were to proactively attack the idea of a personal god, I would be straw-manning deists and panentheists. If I were to attack the idea of the supernatural, I would be straw-manning certain pantheists and archetypalists. Thus, the only way for me to avoid fallacious argumentation is to respond to the claims which others have made, rather than proactively attacking the whole concept of deity.
Pulling ignosticism out on me is not cool, man.
Obviously, I agree with you. However, I don’t consider the nebulous deistic concept to be part of theism, because functionally, someone who actually believes that is an atheist. They may believe in a first mover that disappeared, but it has no effect on the course of their life. And yet it keeps popping up in apologetics as though the unfalsifiable proves something.
At any rate, having not met a theistic concept which compels me to believe, I believe there are no gods. I support this belief with the same material people use to support their lack of belief. I really don’t understand what’s so scary about admitting a default ontological position: until I have evidence that something exists, I believe it doesn’t.
Great post. It’s funny that as an atheist you can deconstruct bad arguments against the existence of God far better and much more succinctly that many (most) Christians can.
Thank you so much for this wonderful post. THOU SHALT BE REBLOGGED! (Do you put in the double “g” in reblogged? Alas the difficultly of making up words). Thank you so much for this post. I’d love to get your feedback on some of my work. You have an educated, open, and honest way of articulating your worldview which I thoroughly appreciate. If you’re interested please send me an email at Andrew@EntertainingChristianity.com.
Thanks for the reblog, and I’ll definitely check out yours! I actually did stumble across your Baseball Non-Problem post, yesterday, but I hadn’t yet had the chance to give it a fair read.
I haven’t watched the video at the top but I enjoyed reading your systematic points.
I would add that, taking points 7 and 8, for instance— I don’t think these arguments are *exclusively* used as a specific counter to ‘the God’ concept or as *evidence* that, therefore, there is not in fact a being equating to ‘god’; rather, they are in fact illustrative of some of the errors in traditional theological thought or, at least, show that this line of reasoning is not axiomatic. I.e. the first cause argument was hugely persuasive until Hume and beyond. Further, in respect to geographical location, this highlights the relevance of the cultural roles and foundations in many mythologies; and this is especially relevant now given the interest surrounding religious terminology in the philosophy of language, etc..
They’re examples of useful probing points. Just my two cents. I realise that your tone and angle may very well be intended to target that video in particular but thought I would mention this in case any others passing by aren’t able to watch the video but read the post!
Reblogged this on Nathan Olmstead and commented:
Very much enjoyed this article. Too many of these arguments are too common.
I thoroughly enjoyed this read. While I, personally, maintain an identification with the category of Christian, I think that the true umbrella that I think you may also identify with is “Academically Religious.” I outline it a little bit in my most recent post. It is not that we necessarily agree on the answers to any of the questions being asked, but rather that we believe these questions are important to ask. It is unfortunate that the word “Academic” is no longer enough to encapsulate this, as too often beliefs effect your credibility within academia, and people have a habit of asserting that which they cannot defend.
All of this to say that it was very refreshing to read an honest and thought out article on a topic like this.
In the words of Ravi Zacharias: “People are equal. Ideas are not equal.”
Hi, Nathan! Thanks for reading and reblogging me!
I gave a quick read to your “Academic Religion” article (I’m about to head to work; I’ll give it the time it deserves once I get home tonight). At a glance, I certainly agree with the idea of maintaining “metaphysical, cosmological, and historical beliefs which do not exceed that which can be reasonably defended.” I generally do not associate my beliefs with the term “religion,” as that word tends to carry a great deal of baggage with it, but I do understand where you are coming from.
In discussion with a friend of mine, I feel that two more accurate terms, by definition, would be “Freethinking.” or “Academic.” As I mentioned in the article, the term “Academic Religion” may be more accurately called a reformation to the true spirit of Academia. Unfortunately, you are right in saying that the term ‘religion’ carries with it some great baggage, especially since it is so poorly defined. I suppose the issue is that terms like ‘freethinking’ and ‘academic’ both carry similar baggage for people coming from a more religious or spiritual background. The term academic religion, more or less, makes everyone equally as uncomfortable! I would be interested to know what some of your defended beliefs would be, and if there would be another term you may be more interested in using.
Hi BP. You know me. You come to my blog often. It’s refreshing to see this. Sadly, rare is the atheist that is actually interested in engaging the other side and working with them. Yes. I know my side has its own number of fools, but the statements of faith I see from atheists online constantly convinces me of how little research that they do. I understand the Unfriendly Atheist, as I prefer to call him, has even endorsed the pagan copycat theory and has been on a program advocating that Jesus never existed. Both of those are positions that are frankly jokes in NT scholarship.
Hi Nick! Thanks for reading and giving me your input!
As I said in the article, I tend to spend as much time correcting bad arguments on the part of people who, ultimately, agree with me as I spend countering the claims of people who do not. The reason I engage in debate is not to be divisive or to act superior or to pretend that I have all the answers (as happens all too often from either side of any debate) but rather to improve my understanding of the world and to encourage others to do the same, whatever the consequences of that improvement may be.
As to the historicity of Jesus, I can certainly feel your pain, there. I am quite often mistaken for being a theist and a Christian simply for defending the idea that the documents of the New Testament do actually contain historical data. I was once involved in a thread on a favorite forum of mine which went for hundreds of pages and several weeks, discussing the historicity of Jesus. Despite my being an atheist, and despite the fact that there were plenty of Christians on that forum, I found myself being the prime supporter the historiological reasons for believing Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.
It was an utterly peculiar position, as I ended up having to argue against mythicists, on the one side, who thought I was ascribing too much value to the gospel accounts; and against the Christians, on the other, who claimed I was giving them too little value.
Yes. When I meet a fellow Christian starting out on this journey and I find them using bad arguments, I try to gently correct them. If they refuse to listen, I put on an atheist hat and then go after them. I figure it’s better they get themselves embarrassed at my hands now rather than go out and embarrass themselves and worse, the Gospel, in front of unbelievers.
I have always been a huge proponent of playing Devil’s Advocate. It got me in trouble sometimes, while I was still a Christian, from friends in Church who didn’t understand the difference between intellectually defending a proposition and personally holding that belief. Of course, I’ve known atheists who have difficulty with this distinction, too…
I have some objections with some of these objections to objections.
You can say there is no evedence coloqualy. You know, like a person. People usually assume that you don’t know absolutely everything and arn’t claiming absolute total knowledge of everything that ever happened. Why do you need to say “no evedence that I am aware of.” obviously they arn’t aware of it. To say their is no evedence is a way of throwing down the gauntlet in a debate. present your evedence. “Er well I have some anicdotal testimonies like alien abducties, that is a *type* of “evidence” right?”
To many atheists the debates about the problem of evil have been historically lost by the theist position. It isn’t admitting that you don’t know anything about philosophy. It’s saying what side you’re on. If they dismiss you because you are on the other side of an ongoing debate, they are not willing to take up their side and see why it doesn’t work against you.
This is for people who believe that the bible is the inerrant word of a benevolent God. Those people actually exist. It is the correct argument to have against this position, it will make them rethink their position.
3 and 4
There ARE people who believe in the god of the bible as stated in the bible. they believe that Noah’s flood happened. atheists are vocal against these people because they are bad for society. These are good arguments against THOSE people who actually do exist.
There really are people who believe that prayer can fix inposible things! There are also people who believe that it is Gods job to answer their wish like prayers. Find out who you are talking to and formulate your arguments accordingly.
this is not an argument it’s just another debate starter. After this is said the person is expected to outline why they believe their God is different from the other Gods of history. Not everything said by an atheist is an argument against God, sometimes it’s just a question.
This is a problem for a specific formulation of God, specifically a God who has a goal of getting everyone in the world to believe. It’s part of the argument from nonbelief against the existance of God. Find out what kind of theist you are talking to before using this. It is an effective argument against an all powerful God who wants to acheive the goal of getting everyone to believe.
This is a response to the argument that everything that exists has a cause. The correct response to point out the circular reasoning in that proposition is to ask what caused God. It doesnt stand on its own as an argument, it is a response to a specific circular claim.
Yeah the problem of evil is still a problem for many formulations of an all powerful and all good God. Sure apologists have apologetics for this but this is a challenge to hear them and dissect them further. None of them are very satisfying to this problem.
This is a response to a specific claim. Jeez are you just reading these on internet memes and pulling them completely out of context as stand alone “arguments”
Say this and let them present an anomalous thing witnessed by a bunch of believers and call that evidence for a miracle and then watch them try and smile afterwards.
This is for pointing out that there is a disconnect between what their God says is moral and what they think is moral. This undercuts many definitions of God as a source for morality.
This is just an opinion. What the hell?
Again, this is a valid argument against many specific God definitions. Like Gods that actually do things in reality when they are asked. If God reached into reality and did something his hand would be dripping with physics.
If someone claims that God is in a specific place. If they point to a thing and say “THIS is God” then you can point out that we went there and didnt find what they are claiming we find. You’re just arguing against using nonsequitor arguments that do not attach to a particular God. God is illdefined this is a bug for believers and not a feature.
Believers do use God of the gaps arguments. This is a counter to point out why this is a fallacy.
This is another rebuttal to God of the Gaps arguments which people actually do make.
Many God beliefs sound crazy, clinically so. They sound like wishful thinking and superstitious thinking and many of them reward credulity. People who said the earth revolved around the sun had to put up with this but they were able to disprove those that threw down the gauntlet and demanded proof. Nothing is advanced without the naysayers. Also, this is just an opinion not an argument.
This is a response to the argument that God *is* necessary for the world to exist. A response to the fallacious fine tuning argument. It comes out naturally after someone talks about how God made the universe to glorify himself or something.
This is a response to a specific claim namely that God punishes those who deny the holy spirit. People who believe in Zeus like Gods who walk around and throw lightning bolts at bad people really do exist. Hurricanes and earthquakes and natural desasters happen because God is doing it to punish Gay Rights Activists and Libral Movies.
You’ve been in the fox hole too long and you’re just seeing these statements as a big blur of atheist “arguments” rather than things commonly said against theists who actually believe some pretty ridiculous things. Atheists don’t usually debate Biologos theistic evolutionists because they arn’t that harmful and antitheists believe in attacking the harmful ideas of religion.
Maybe you saw some battle weary atheists lash out at a theist with the wrong arguments and mislabled that as a common bad atheist argument. Don’t let the fact that theism is so badly defined, trip you up here. You may find yourself rightly using some of these arguments when you talk to someone who needs to hear them.
You seem to have missed the point of my article, entirely.
I have no issue with people responding directly to specific claims. I respond directly to specific claims in my posts, all the time. However, Hemant Mehta was not responding directly to specific claims, in his video. He was lumping together a score of least-common-denominator responses to least-common-denominator arguments, and labeling them “Arguments Against God’s Existence.” This is terrible argumentation and incredibly poor persuasive argument. If we want to claim that we are rational and intellectual in the formulation of our beliefs, then we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of discourse.
Poor logic and bad reasoning should be corrected wherever they are found, whether the source is a theist or an atheist.
Just wanted to hear if you’ve written anything on another topic. I constantly interact with internet atheists who get so bothered when I recommend that they read the latest scholarship on the NT for instance. “Well why do I need to read another book to understand the Word of God?” I just consider it hideous laziness that shows someone is really not open to evidence. Have you addressed this attitude among atheists anywhere?
Not yet on my blog, but I have advocated reading NT scholarship elsewhere in conversation.
I don’t think I would consider it a matter of laziness so much as one of ignorance and misconception. Most of the vocal Internet atheists that I’ve known came from Christian backgrounds which did not advocate a very scholarly view of Scripture. These people were raised thinking that the author of the whole Bible was God, that it is a single contiguous book, and that it was written with a distinct, singular purpose in mind. They take these misconceptions with them when they leave the faith.
It can take an enormous amount of patience and effort to overcome this. I once spent almost thirty pages worth of posts in a forum thread trying to explain to someone that the Pauline epistles are literature from antiquity to be evaluated as any other letters from antiquity might.
Pingback: Atheism Vs. Anti-theism- Three Differences Between Having a Belief and Being a Jerk | Entertaining Christianity
Hey Boxing, this is an excellent blog. I follow Hemant and I agree with you completely. It is refreshing to meet an atheist who tries to represent the other side fairly. I appreciate it.
Thanks for taking the time to read! I am always looking forward to input from anyone, theist and atheist alike!
As for representing the other side fairly, I find that it’s the easiest and best way to avoid the all-too-common Straw Man fallacy. Plus, my goal really is to learn the truth about the things I discuss, so it would gain me no profit to caricature an opposing position.
Great!! I hope we can continue to dialogue. I am new to blogging and am learning a few things by reading your blog.
I’m glad that I can be a help! If you haven’t found them already, I’ll recommend reading the articles linked in my About page. They give a pretty decent introduction both to who I am and to my purpose for this blog.
After that, feel free to browse through my archives. Or, if you’re feeling up to tackling some of my heavier stuff, check out my Against William Lane Craig section– especially my series on the Philosophy of Time, of which I am quite proud.
I reblogged your entry over at my blog http://www.samuelronicker.com and one of the commenters used #1! It’s not an uncommon objection and while there’s much more to it than the evidence you mention, it seems to me that it’s more about what the skeptic is willing to listen to as evidence. Are sound arguments evidence? If they’re not, then show me evidence for the existence of the dark side of the moon or the infinite non-repetition of pi. Just because it cannot be seen or guaranteed doesn’t mean there’s no evidence for it. Does historical evidence count as evidence? Textual evidence?
Well written and I look forward to reading more.
Pingback: BALANCED DEBATE: In Praise of An Atheist - Clash Daily
Pingback: What Would Convince Me to Be an Atheist? | Entertaining Christianity
Reblogged this on The grokking eagle.
Awesome post! Hemant’s arguments were so poor it was tempting to believe they were satirical. Great job at pointing out his straw man arguments, wonderful read.
Thanks! I rather dislike poor argumentation, whether the person agrees with me in the end or not. Using an analogy from my math tutoring, I don’t really care whether a student has the right answer if they didn’t arrive at that answer by using the proper method.
Definitely! I haven’t read many bloggers who take the time to honestly assess bad arguments – whether they be for their side or against.