Numbering Theist Arguments. :D
Offline In the webcam chatroom, we decided it would be really cool if we could say something like, "He's pulling a number 12!" when a theist started a tired, old argument we've all heard a Brazilian times (nods to old Bush joke).
This is what we've come up with so far:
1. Pascal's Wager
2. Watchmaker argument
3. "Unmoved Mover" argument
Of course, this is subject to change. I'd like to list the arguments in order of most to least common...or perhaps most to least annoying? 
In the RRS stickam room, someone posted a website that listed the top theistic arguments, but I didn't click on it in time. I just did a quick Google, but it didn't pop up...probably didn't enter the right search parameters.
Anyway, it would be great to form a comprehensive list with the proper titles. You've heard them a Brazilian® times, now help me form the list. 
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline 35. Eternal torture in hell for trivial offenses is the moral and logical equivalent of a parent punishing a child for misbehavior.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
- Login to post comments
Offline Do we have "Defense by Redefinition"?
That's where the theist justifies any illogical statement about god by saying,
"That's man's definition" or "that's not what the word means when it applies to god."
The kicker to this argument is they never supply a new definition that could be refuted. They insist on not defining it, or trying to define it negatively, i.e. "It's NOT x, y, z."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Would this be classified under that?:
"god is beyond our understanding/beyond the laws of physics. Therefore you can't use science against him."
- Login to post comments
Offline God cannot be known/measured via science/logic, see Schrödinger's cat.
- Login to post comments
Offline • Religion doesn't hurt anyone/all the religionists I know are nice: atheists are just persecuting believers.• America was meant to be a Christian nation.• Secularism has destroyed society (optionally: but I like it because it means the rapture will happen soon).• Humans are made to believe/"God-shaped hole"• "My religion is actually about x." Where x is a special interpretation, and may be less problematic, but isn't demonstrated to be the actual intent of the dogma.
- Login to post comments
Offline My responses would be:
• Religion doesn't hurt anyone/all the religionists I know are nice: atheists are just persecuting believers.
• America was meant to be a Christian nation.
• Secularism has destroyed society (optionally: but I like it because it means the rapture will happen soon).
• Humans are made to believe/"God-shaped hole"
• "My religion is actually about x." Where x is a special interpretation, and may be less problematic, but isn't demonstrated to be the actual intent of the dogma.
- Login to post comments
Offline Maybe we can't prove that gods don't exist, but doesn't this list prove something? If the sellers of gods put out all this bullshit to make their point, doesn't that prove something? If everything they say is bullshit, doesn't that prove something?
- Login to post comments
Offline This is for questioning the existence of Jesus Christ:
# If you believe (historical figure) was real then you believe Jesus Christ was real.
I can't think of any other way to word it but I'm sure you guys have heard this.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
- Login to post comments
Offline This is for questioning the existence of Jesus Christ:
# If you believe (historical figure) was real then you believe Jesus Christ was real.
I can't think of any other way to word it but I'm sure you guys have heard this.
Or the common variant "There's more evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Napoleon/Socrates/Julius Caesar."
Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.
- Login to post comments
Offline 31. You're aren't a atheist unless you say you reject all gods.
Also, #10 should be "...was an atheist/theist". Because they use things like "Einstein/Newton/Mendel/King Jr was a theist" as often as they use "Hitler/Stalin/Mao/the Unabomber was an atheist". CapnOAwesome called it "Argument from Stalin" and "Argument from Newton".
EDIT: Has anyone listed the "you can't put the ingredients for [dish X] into a bag, shake it up, and have [dish X] come out of the bag perfectly made" argument?
- Login to post comments
Offline - Darwin admitted he made evolution up and repented on his death bed.
- If evolution is real, why haven't I seen a monkey give birth to a human?
-Natural selection is random.
- Login to post comments
Offline Ophios wrote:Isn't that the very definition of atheism?31. You're aren't a atheist unless you say you reject all gods.
- Login to post comments
Offline I was actually trying to do something like this myself on my personal blog... While researching, I found this site and community...
Regardless of the format, we should compile this list.
- Login to post comments
Offline This topic is quite important to me because it was the reason I started my blog (www.dailywackadoo.com), and how I came to find this site/forum.
I suggest starting a wiki where the moderator here and the a couple of other members would contribute to this list. It is a much better platform to have a community working on a document/project instead of using a thread in a forum.
I would start this wiki myself, but I'm new to this community and don't know yet the moderators or active members.
- Login to post comments
Offline BenfromCanada wrote:Actually, the word atheist just means "not a theist"Ophios wrote:Isn't that the very definition of atheism?31. You're aren't a atheist unless you say you reject all gods.
But why would you be "not a theist" in our society without consciously rejecting the existence of all deities?
- Login to post comments
Offline But why would you be "not a theist" in our society without consciously rejecting the existence of all deities?
Have you ever heard the phrase "I will not dignify that question with a response"? Rejecting the deities is in a way dignifying them.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
- Login to post comments
Offline BenfromCanada wrote:But why would you be "not a theist" in our society without consciously rejecting the existence of all deities?Have you ever heard the phrase "I will not dignify that question with a response"? Rejecting the deities is in a way dignifying them.
I'd think it would be a negative as opposed to a positive dignify. Er, not that "dignify" could be negative. But I don't think it's dignifying deities, in any way.
- Login to post comments
Offline Symok wrote:Bodhitharta wrote:When was evolution proven to be true?
It hasn't been "proven", but there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support it, in contast to the ZERO scientific evidence that a magical man in the clouds snapped his fingers and made everything appear. In any event that is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the fact that claiming that evolution has "been proven false" is not just a bad argument but an OUTRIGHT LIE.
Well I'm glad that you admit that it has not been "proven" true. Isn't it also true that it cannot be proven true by the scientific method.
Proofs are for deductive logic.
Inductive arguments are never proven, by definition.
Ergo, asking if an inductive claim has been 'proven' is itself an error.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline This is pretty good:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/tp/DebateKillers.htm
Top 10 Conversation Killers for Atheists: How Religious Theists Can Hurt Their Cause
">From Austin Cline,Your Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now! Atheists and theists frequently get into debates over the existence of gods, over the nature of religion, over whether religions do more harm than good, etc. Although every atheist and theist are different, it still works out that a lot of these conversations keep hitting the same topics and keep running into the same problems. Both sides can be at fault for this, but there are number of common errors which theists make that can kill any chance there might have been at having a productive, interesting, and substantive discussion. These errors can be avoided if theists know about them in advance and care.
1) Presume to Instruct Us that We're "Really" Agnostics, Not Atheists
Many conversations between atheists and theists are killed at the very beginning when a theist lectures an atheist about what the "real" definition of atheism is, who "real" atheists are, and that people who call themselves atheists are "really" agnostics. More often than not this religious theist has no idea what they are talking about: they read some false claims in an apologetics books and are now repeating them as if they were gospel truth. Instead, they should take some time to learn how atheists and dictionaries define atheism and agnosticism, not presume to impose their own on us. Atheism vs. Agnosticism...2) Presume to Preach and Proselytize, As If We Needed It
Far too often, religious theists enter conversations with atheists not to learn something and not to merely communicate their perspective, but instead to simply proselytize and preach. That's not a conversation because a real conversation is a two-way street where both contribute and both are interested in taking something away. Preaching or proselytization is a one-way street where one person does all the talking but none of the listening and none of the learning. Atheists don't need this and are almost never at all interested in it. If you feel the need to preach, ask if the person wants to listen.zSB(3,3)3) Commit Obvious and Egregious Logical Fallacies
No one is perfect and few learn how to construct logical arguments, much less how to identify and avoid logical fallacies. Even so, few things are more annoying than to see someone commit the most obvious and egregious fallacies, even those which should have been noticed without specific education. If you commit such fallacies, and especially if you commit many of them, many won't even bother trying to explain it all to you. If your position isn't worth your spending time to identify and eliminate basic errors in how you explain it, how can it be worth others' time listening to or rebutting it? Logical Fallacies4) Try to "Prove" Something By Quoting the Bible
Christians regard their Bible significant in their lives, but for most atheists it is little more than literature at best — ancient literature mixed with a bit of mythologized history. For atheists, quoting passages from the Bible proves nothing about any gods whatsoever. At most, it may prove that the person doing the quoting doesn't have anything better to offer. That the Christian doing the quoting considers this the best possible sort of evidence to offer reinforces the tragedy of this miscommunication. Avoid this by remembering that you can't prove anything to atheists by simply quoting the Bible.5) Threaten Us With Damnation or Say Atheism is a "Bad Bet"
Many religious theists believe there is a punishment for bad people in an afterlife. In certain religions, like Christianity, this punishment plays a central role in their mythology. They always live under the threat of punishment if they don't behave and believe correctly, so it may seem reasonable to pass the threat along to nonbelievers — but that will likely have the opposite effect. Many people react negatively to threats and telling atheists that they will go to hell if they don't convert, or that atheism is a "bad bet" with bad consequences, will likely push them away. Atheists Have No Reason to Fear Hell...6) Pretend that You Don't Have the Burden of Proof
People making a positive claim have a burden of proof; this means that they voluntarily assume an obligation to support their claim. All theists claiming that their god exists have such a burden of proof. Atheists only have such a burden when they make a specific claim. Some theists pretend that they don't have any obligation to support what they say, like for example arguing that such a burden lies with those who hold a minority position (atheists), regardless of whether they make any claims or not. Atheists shouldn't fall for such tricks and won't take the attempt very well. Why Atheists Ask for Proof of God...7) Cut & Paste Arguments From Others That You Can't Defend
Theological arguments can get very difficult and very complicated. Many people, atheists and theists, can quickly get in over their heads and have no good answers or arguments to offer. There's no shame in this, but occasionally a person will simply take a short cut by copying arguments from someplace else and pasting them into their own conversation. Even worse, they don't understand the argument well enough to adequately defend it. Quoting others is fine, but only in support of arguments you are making on your own. If you can't make your own arguments, then it's better to admit this and bow out.
Ignore What We Say and Pretend that We Didn't Just Object to that Argument
A large number of debates, no matter what the subject, can end up with all parties just talking past each other: each is more interested in what they have to say than in listening to what others have to say. Everyone does this, but when it comes to discussions with atheists many theists do something in particular: they offer arguments for the existence of their god and then ignore the various objections and rebuttals offered by atheists. It's one thing not to agree with those rebuttals, but quite another to go on repeating the argument as if no objections had been raised at all. Please don't do that, it's annoying.9) Offer That Same Argument Again That We've Refuted a Million Times
There are only so many arguments for the existence of gods, so we can't expect theists to offer something completely new and original every time. This doesn't excuse offering the most simplistic forms of these same arguments, nor does it excuse a failure to do some research to learn what the most common objections and rebuttals are. If you do this, atheists will often assume that you really don't know much about the argument or even about how to argue this subject in general. If you want to kill your chance at a substantive conversation with an atheist, demonstrate that you didn't do any research ahead of time.10) Announce That You'll Be Praying for Us
One of the most condescending things a theist can do to an atheist is to make a point of announcing that they'll be praying for us. Atheists don't believe in the power of prayer, but even theists can't think that prayer will be more effective for having announced. So what's the purpose? Some say that it's to express well-wishes, but people say that they'll pray for someone when the person is sick or having trouble. One way or another, the theist appears to be expressing superiority over atheists in a passive-aggressive manner. That suggests they weren't interested in serious conversation to begin with. Some years ago, I saw a website that had a list of over 40 numbers responses to theists..... the atheist who ran the site would respond to theists by simply sending them a number and a link to his site."Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
- Login to post comments
Offline This is a good one. Should be sent to every theist.
- Login to post comments
Offline {Mod edit - post removed per Freethinking Anonymous rules}
- Login to post comments
JeremiahSmith,
Thanks for number 32... I think that one ought to be much higher, actually. I encounter it a LOT.
I also love the way you've worded it. So often when I refute this argument, I deal with it in the theist wording. This simple reversal makes it even more obviously false, and also negates the really stupid argument which I will now put forth:
X+1: Courts don't need as much evidence as atheists ask for. Therefore, god exists.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Okay, I put in the newer couple of "Things". I'm removing anything stricly based off of evolution/creationism (Note: strictly just that, if it doesn't mention god or no god, then it's bye bye). so numbers 20,21,22,14,15 are removed (I'm sure we could have a list of misrepresentations of evolution)
The "Yours in christ (Or whatever) is an oximoron" is removed.
I also removed one of mine "you have faith too" I feel it was covered better in the term "Atheism is a religion because you need to have faith that God does not exist."
I'm removing the back end of "Blaming atheism for atrocities committed by communist countries because the leaders happened to be atheist." Which had the "Hitler=atheist" argument. and changing my inclusion to " 'Someone who wasn't and atheist' was an atheist"
I also removed Laura Ingram, funny, but it counts as "He/she said... therefore true "
Now I'm reordering it.
I knew it didn't really belong, I'm just tired of seeing it on St. Michael's posts.
There the list is reordered, If you think something should be somewhere else, say so. This is the best I can do by myself.
1. Pascal's Wager.
2. Watchmaker argument.
3. You can't prove God doesn't exist.
4. No true Scotsman.
5. "The burden of proof is on he who denies."
6. Scientists don't know. Therefore my god did it.
7. Not A, therefore B.
8. "Unmoved Mover" argument.
9. Atheists are just angry at God because something bad happened.
10. Atheists hate god.
11. There is no such thing as an atheist because you have to have all knowledge to make such a claim.
12. Soft atheist = Agnostic, and only agnostic.
13. Life developing was so unlikely to happen, it must have been done by God.
14. Atheism is a religion because you need to have faith that God does not exist.
15. You can't see love/the wind/your brain/whatever.
16. All atheists are liberal/Materialists… etc.
17. "Someone who wasn't an atheist" was an atheist.
18. Blaming atheism for atrocities committed by communist countries because the leaders happened to be atheist.
19. Atheists have no morals....or that people cannot live ethical lives without God forcing them to.
20. God said it; I believe it; that settles it.
21. Using the Bible to prove itself.
22. "I know it in my heart."
23. He/She.... said this is true. Therefore it's true.
24. Claims that Atheists are denying any argument or evidence about God or creationism, when in fact the claims have been addressed and pointed out as not evidence.
25. Some Christian person did something that was beneficial to the world therefore Christianity is good.
26. Atheists are simply refusing to acknowledge/submit to a higher power, because blah blah.
27. The Word of God is required to be "rightly divided" and you're as bad as fundamentalists when you read The Bible literally.
28. Religion is sacred and should not be ridiculed or disrespected.
29. Courts don't need as much evidence as atheists ask for. Therefore, god exists.
30. Anything relating to beauty requiring a creator
Hmm.. the whole "Beauty cannot be categorized, yet it exists. So with god..." argument?
Is this the same as the "cannot see the wind" argument?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Oh, oh... a new one!
(Not really, but I think it's worth posting here... Feel free to ignore it.)
From http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/the_rational_response_mail_bag/4536
So, without further ado, I present to you the newest proof of God:
31. My child didn't grow in a vegetable garden. Therefore, god exists.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The idea, as it was presented by the theist in the Atheist vs Religion group I'm in on MySpace was that beauty is objective and therefore created. "Evidence" included claims that "everyone thinks a rose is beautiful", "the symetry of a rose serves no function except to make it beautiful" and other nonsense.
I'm starting to like you, since you're too dumb to come up with something to argue. All I have to do is say, apply your words to yourself, and I can go on to the next topic.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Actually the scientific method may prove evolution to be law. (that's the step above theory) Our current scientific ability lacks this, but science itself evolves.
What?!?! It's only faith. That fact that we exist is not evidence for either creation or evolution. Our existence isn't evidence of anything.
Please present some evidence about God.
How is not believing in God a 'problem'?
Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.
Perhaps adjust that a bit adding or rewording to include
Religion is faith and not meant to be tested.
I was just being silly about Laura Ingram, but if you want to leave her in the list, maybe just add a bunch of names, Bill O'Reilly, Richard Roberts, Jimmy Swagart, George Bush, Pope, whomever...
Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.
32 = The universe and/or life on Earth is far to complex to have not been created by a God.
33 = Atheists are only attacking Christianity and not all religions
34 = "I'll pray for you"
Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.
I quite like this idea. We can use it in the killin em with kindness forums as well. Find some way to distribute this list.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
* "are you saying we all came from goo ?"
* Dawkins is a ....
* My Bible/Tipitaka/Torah/Al-Qur'an/Discordia/Kojiki says so
Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.
We might be able to make better arguments than the theists, but we can also borrow from some of their good ideas as well.
The site for a Catholic apologetics organization, Catholic Answers, has done something very similar by categorizing all the most common challenges to Catholicism. Their site is organized into a "library" of "tracts."
Check it out: http://www.catholic.com click on the links that say "Library" and you can see how they organize their material. Also, I highly recommend bookmarking this site because it is a good reference for when you are debating Catholics, you can anticipate many of their most common arguments.
And the list as it is now, new stuff added and slightly resorted.
1. Pascal's Wager.
2. Watchmaker argument.
3. "I'll pray for you".
4. You can't prove God doesn't exist.
5. Claims that Atheists are denying any argument for evidence about God or creationism, when in fact the claims have been addressed and pointed out as not evidence.
6. No true Scotsman.
7. "The burden of proof is on he who denies."
8. Scientists don't know. Therefore my god did it.
9. Not A, therefore B.
10. "Unmoved Mover" argument.
11. Atheists are just angry at God because something bad happened.
12. Atheists hate god.
13. There is no such thing as an atheist because you have to have all knowledge to make such a claim.
14. Soft atheist = Agnostic, and only agnostic.
15. Life developing was so unlikely to happen, it must have been done by God.
16. Atheism is a religion because you need to have faith that God does not exist.
17. The universe and/or life on Earth is far to complex to have not been created by a God.
18. Ad hom against certian atheists (Dawkins... etc.).
19. You can't see love/the wind/your brain/whatever.
20. All atheists are liberal/Materialists… etc.
21. Atheists are only attacking Christianity and not all religions.
22. "Someone who wasn't an atheist" was an atheist.
23. Blaming atheism for atrocities committed by communist countries because the leaders happened to be atheist.
24. Atheists have no morals....or that people cannot live ethical lives without God forcing them to.
25. God said it; I believe it; that settles it.
26. Using the Bible to prove itself.
27. "I know it in my heart."
28. He/She.... said this is true. Therefore it's true.
29. Some Christian person did something that was beneficial to the world therefore Christianity is good.
30. Atheists are simply refusing to acknowledge/submit to a higher power, because blah blah.
31. The Word of God is required to be "rightly divided" and you're as bad as fundamentalists when you read The Bible literally.
32. Religion is sacred and should not be ridiculed or disrespected.
33. Courts don't need as much evidence as atheists ask for. Therefore, god exists.
34. Anything relating to beauty requiring a creator.
# ?.Believers like to ask questions that has no answer, and this somehow proves a god exists.
# ?.Some theists claim to have been an atheist at one time and is now "enlightened".
# ?.The evidence for god is all around you, just look around.
# ?.Where did everything come from then?
# ?.Billions of people believe there a god, therefore god exists.
# ?.many theists confuse the origin of life with evolution
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
I feel like these two are the same thing
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
30. You can never comprehend God because you're unwilling to use faith, you poor, misguided, idiotic atheist you. I'll secretly enjoy you burning in Hell for eternity.
"Like Fingerpainting 101, gimme no credit for having class; one thumb on the pulse of the nation, one thumb in your girlfriend's ass; written on, written off, some calling me a joke, I don't think that I'm a sellout but I do enjoy Coke."
-BHG
But they are different.
One says, "You can't" the other says "You have to"
But they can be used in conjuction.
Okay. I've been kind of letting this gel. The YouTube thing was brought up when I was in the webcam room the other day, so I've been thinking about it, too.
I would like a title we can use.
"Stupid Theist Tricks" strikes me as funny, but the theist being told his or her argument is a "stupid theist trick" probably won't think so. The atheistic position is "offensive" enough without compounding the problem.
Does anyone think we should call it this or something else that is an attention-grabber or should we fall back on more neutral language?
How about simply this: "Fallacious Theist Arguments"?
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Thanks again, Ophios.
I've already said I'll tackle Pascal's Wager. Does anyone want dibs on another one?
BTW, I think we need to be able to use the entire RRS site as a resource, which means we can copy from posts, blogs, etc. After all, this is an RRS project. Any objections to this?
Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Perhaps you could use some kind of wiki-style software to allow for collaboratively writing and editing the information and restrict editing access to certain authorized users.
4 and 7 are essentially the same thing. The theist tries to shift the burden of "disproof" to the atheist.
How are 11 and 12 different? Hate god and angry at god? I dunno. Seems like splitting hairs.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Oh, do we have the "descent into nihilism" defense yet?
That's where the theist points out the ultimate uncertainty of any knowledge, and then asserts that his position is as uncertain as atheism, and therefore as valid?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Not really. 4 isn't about shifting proof.
Well, I'd say it is, but I'm not going to belabor the point.
Demanding a disproof = demanding proof of a negative.
Proof of a negative does not exist in logic because the burden of proof always lies on the claimant, i.e. the one making a positive assertion.
So, a theist who points out the lack of a disproof is really just getting his burden of proof crossed up. There is no disproof of anything.
Like I said, though, it's not a huge deal. I can see how it looks like different arguments, especially to a theist.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
This is a comman fallacy in basic understanding I commonly come accross from Christians (other theists - and even some secular peoples)
Scientific Theories CANNOT be proven - by there nature this is impossible. No matter how many time a theory produces the right answer - it cannot be PROVEN because it is impossible to exhaust using at every single point in the entire universe.
Take the THEORY of gravity - or the THEORY of electricity. So far - they have been accurate - and have come to the point where Scientists (and most commoners) accept both as fact - because we have yet to see it as inaccurate. However - we have not exhausted all possible points in the universe to PROVE gravity is what we say it is. The same is true of electricity.
And in case you could not gather - the same IS true of evolution. We have yet to see this Scientific THEORY be inaccurate (and not be modified to accomidate new information). It is not a fact - simply because we have not yet exhausted all possible points in the universe which would be necessary to Scientifically PROOVE it.
You may ask the question of what use we have of the word "proove" or "proof" then? This concept comes into play when you view the world using mathematics. Unlike science - the world of mathematics is entirely man-made. Humans made up the numbers. We made up "lines" - we made up "triangles" - and we can PROOVE a triangle has three sides - simply because we say so.
We can PROOVE that a triangle with three equal angles MUST have three equal sides. WHY? because it was a theorem that CANNOT be disproven in this conceptual world we have created using math. simply because we say so.
True it is we can USE mathematics IN science to assist ourselves in explanation... but it is just that - an instrument (much like language)- not a parallel.
* [quote random bible pasage]. Therefore god exists.
* miracles happen. therefore god exists.
* you're taking the bible out of context. therefore you don't know anything about Christianity. therefore god exists.