If you're an atheist, I want to know what your least favorite arguement used by theists is. If you are a theist, I want to know what your least favorite arguement used by atheists is. My least favorite arguement used by atheists has to be the "would you really want to live forever?" one. Following the logic of that thesis we might as well all kill ourselves right now because we might wake up one day and be "bored." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Good question Andrew, My least favorite argument is when someone writes "God is real" as though it was fact. It is the one thing that annoys me. Personally I wasted too long believing in god, and in the end I knew I was wrong. So I hate it when it is said that "God is real".
The comment the theist must hate the most from an atheist is "prove it". And the statement I hate the most from theists is "I can feel God within me, that's proof enough".
Jesus loves me yes I know cause the bible tells me so. even as a kid in sunday school i though this was especially silly.
From Theists: The following, in ascending order of my hatred: 10. "People grow out of atheism when they get older." 9. "I can't argue this myself. Here is a link: http://www.somerandombullshit.com" 8. "Well, your logic is flawed, but this is a discussion for another day." 7. (The following argument is represented in a pidgin form of C.) main() { while(atheist != frustrated) { say("define that\n"); } say("See\? You can\'t define that word without using it in the definition\. I win\!"); } 6. "You're just not being open-minded to the possibility of God." 5. "Almost six billion people can't be all wrong." 4. Paley's Watch 3. Descartes's second postulate 2. Pascal's Wager 1. "Why don't you believe?" or "The default state of man is to believe in God," or anything attempting to shift the burden of proof to the atheist.
Arguments like this one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3791.asp It is not an especially good argument and this is a terrible account of it, what I hate about it though is the way it combines science and philosophy in such an unseemly manner. The universe is complex and chaotic, it is too proud to conform to "logical"analyses. Logic is simple, absolute and has clean lines, empirical observation is messy and limited. They can only be grudgingly combined. That probably makes no sense to anyone. Oh well. __________________ Muscleman/whatsupall (2002-2003): "or should i get more stupider"
You're right Andrew, it's all one sided really, there's not enough religious folk here to create a real debate of any kind.
I've used up all of my "non-free" email addresses, and I can't get my other ones out of my other usernames. Plus I think they have my IP address tracked. They banned my Scottster account even though I never told them I was BlueSub or notMichaelJackson, my first two accounts.
The argument that I find most annoying, from any side, is that wonderful combination of the fallacies of "argument from ignorance" and "false dilemma". It usually comes in the form of "I/we don't know or can't prove that X happened that way so it must have happened this way. It's used most often by creationists and ID proponents but is definitely not limited to them. I'd also have to say that "changing the subject", and "straw man" fallacies are also quite irritating. ~Raithere
