Problems with Common Atheist Arguments
Introduction:
The reason I entitled this "Problems with Common Atheist Arguments" instead of "The Case Against Atheism" is that many atheists claim that atheism is not a belief system, makes no claims, and has no requirements to follow, so there's no way to argue against atheism itself. I will go along with this idea, and argue against the most frequently used arguments of atheists instead of atheism itself.
Disclaimer # 1: This is NOT an argument against atheism or ALL atheists. Not at all. If atheism is not a belief system, then there is no way anyone can make an accurate argument against ALL of atheism or EVERY atheist. No, rather this is an argument against the most frequently used claims and arguments made by the atheists I speak to on Twitter. These are NOT exact quotes, they are paraphrases of the arguments and claims made by these atheists.
Disclaimer # 2: If you don't make any of these claims or arguments, then this post DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU, so you have no reason to take offense.
In this argument, "atheism" will mean "the lack of belief in any gods," and therefore automatically implies the acceptance of "naturalism," which is the worldview that nothing exists or happens unless it has a natural explanation. Atheism and naturalism go hand-in-hand. A "god" is here defined as a being beyond nature with a mind, which caused our universe to exist.
Atheist Claims are Self-Defeating and Contain Many Double-Standards:
"You must only accept scientific evidence as truth"
The popular atheist claim, "You must only accept scientific evidence as truth," is self-defeating (destroys itself) because that very claim is not a scientific claim, it is a philosophical claim. If we accept that philosophical claim, then we must also reject that claim because it is not scientific. So, right off the bat, we see that there is no reason to accept the atheist's claim that we should not believe anything without scientific evidence. (FYI -- atheists usually define "scientific evidence" as that which is "observable, repeatable, and falsifiable.") Not only is this claim self-defeating, but it is also arbitrary and not even followed by many atheists, who accept mathematical theories, subjective moral ideas, and the laws of logic within the mind, all without empirical scientific evidence.
"The Multiverse Explains the Fine-Tuning (and perhaps the origin) of our Universe"
This claim presents a major double-standard among many atheists, because the Multiverse Theory was not based upon any empirical observable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence, instead it was originally put forward based upon mathematical and philisophical theories in order to explain the "fine-tuning for life" we see in the universe, without the need for an intelligent "Initiator" or "Clockwinder" to exist. So, atheists who accept and promote the Multiverse Theory while at the same time ridiculing others for accepting God based on philisophical and other non-empirical theories, are hypocrites with a huge double-standard.
In addition, the Multiverse Theory doesn't explain the origin, instead, it postulates the idea of billions of other universes which also need explanation, thus violating "Occam's Razor."
"The Moral Values of Modern Atheists are Much Superior to the Moral Values of Yahweh"
In order to make this claim, there must exist an objective (3rd party) standard (law or umpire) of morality, against which the modern atheist can judge or condemn Yahweh's morals. The problem for atheists is, without some kind of "God" or "Universal Law-Giver," the atheist has absolutely zero objective standards or umpires they can use to claim superiority over the moral values of Yahweh. Atheists are merely judging Yahweh against their own subjective feelings and opinions, or some kind of imaginary moral law in their mind, which doesn't exist.
In addition, atheists usually agree that human moral values only apply within our own species, and that is why we put humans on trial for crimes, but not apes or lions on trial for killing others. Therefore, our human morals would not apply to Yahweh in the same way they apply to other humans, if Yahweh belongs to a different species. So many atheists hold quite a few double-standards when it comes to judging Yahweh.
"Logic, Mathematics, and Morals are the Things We Should Base our Lives On"
Atheists may not say this exact phrase, but many of them do have this idea. The inconsistency is, none of these things are based upon empirical, observable, repeatable, falsifiable scientific evidence. Instead they are based upon "experiential" or "self-evident" evidence. The scientific method itself is based upon, and requires, the use of these self-evident things, otherwise we could never even practice science. So any atheist who accepts these three things, while at the same time ridiculing others for accepting God based upon experiential (or self-evident) evidence, is being hypocritical.
"Logic tells us that the only things which exist are those which can be naturally explained by physical processes"
Atheists are using logical thinking and rational inference to argue in favor of a worldview (naturalism) which places extreme doubt on any reason why we should trust our brain to be able to perform logical thinking or rational inference that prefers truth over falsehood.
"The time-space-matter universe began to exist with no cause"
First off, this statement a logical absurdity, which makes a mockery of everything we see and experience with science and with our reasoning.
Secondly, if the time-space-matter universe can begin to exist with no cause, why ridicule others for believing that God "just exists?"
Thirdly, and most importantly, if this is true, then it means that naturalism is false, because the event of time beginning to exist happened without a natural cause, therefore, things can happen outside or beyond the natural.
"Moral values evolved and developed separately from religious beliefs in early humans, therefore, that is why we are free to reject religion while clinging to moral values"
First of all, atheists have zero scientific, repeatable, observable, falsifiable evidence proving that, so why do they accept this claim? Secondly, even if this is true, what basis do atheists use to judge that morals are necessary for human survival but religious beliefs are not necessary for human survival?
"Atheism is not a belief system and it makes no claims, therefore you cannot lump atheists together as making the same claims." (But then sometimes the same atheists make this statement:"You are making a 'straw man' argument against atheists. NO atheist ever makes that claim!")
So, I am not allowed lump atheists together as making the same arguments, but you are? If no two atheists follow the same belief system, then how can you possibly claim to speak on behalf of other atheists, or to claim that you know that NO atheist has made the claim that I am arguing against?
"Religion is evil"
First, an atheist saying this is making the logical fallacy known as "hasty generalization." Secondly, how does the atheist define "evil" and what are they basing that judgment on. Thirdly, this has nothing to do with whether or not a God exists. And in order to truthfully make this claim, wouldn't an atheist be required to examine each and every different religious group and determine whether that group's beliefs cause more evil than they do good?
"No evidence for any god exists anywhere"
First, this implies that the atheist is omniscient (all-knowing) and has examined everything that exists in the universe. Secondly, the atheist is almost always referring to "scientific, repeatable, observable, falsifiable evidence" whenever they make this claim. As we have seen from above, it is self-defeating to claim that we must only accept scientific claims. Thirdly, by making a definite claim like this, the atheist has the burden of proof to prove that this claim is true.
"A good God would never allow unnecessary suffering"
This is actually one of the better atheist arguments, which makes logical sense. The problem is, though, how does an atheist define the word "good," and what standard or umpire are they judging God against? In addition, how would an atheist know which suffering is "unnecessary" (or what the end result is) unless they have all-knowledge (including knowledge of the future)?
Even if this argument successfully proves that God wouldn't be "good" according to certain human standards of "good" and "evil," it has absolutely no bearing on whether a God exists or not.
"Atheism is the superior mindset to hold, because that is the mindset we were born with"
In my opinion, this argument is the worst, weakest argument in favor of atheism in history. We were also born without a knowledge of science, math, reading, writing, the laws of logic, philosophy, etc., etc. If it is true that the "superior" mindset to have is the one we are born with, then we must also abandon science, logic, math, reading, writing, etc.
Also, what objective basis or standard are atheists using to proclaim any mindset or worldview is "superior" to another?
______________________________________________________________________________
Have you met the Scienticians?
Scientician is a new word I came up with to describe the people you see on Twitter who have a new faith, a new cult, a new dogma.
Here are their beliefs:
1: You must only accept science as truth, or fact. You are a foolish idiot if you accept any other kind of evidence for the existence of God, souls, etc.
2: Even though science may be wrong on anything at any given time, you must view and treat science as if it is infallible, and never be suspicious or disrespectful toward it.
3: Even though science has made huge blunders in the past, you must accept the "current truth," as though it were absolute, until the consensus of peer-reviewed scientists change their minds. Then you must abandon the "old truth" for the "new current truth."Here are their beliefs:
1: You must only accept science as truth, or fact. You are a foolish idiot if you accept any other kind of evidence for the existence of God, souls, etc.
2: Even though science may be wrong on anything at any given time, you must view and treat science as if it is infallible, and never be suspicious or disrespectful toward it.
4: Science may have flaws, but it must be accepted as true, because it is all we have, and the ONLY method to gain truth.
5: Science can never provide truth, because science can change anything at any time. Nothing is set in stone.
6: The laws of nature have ALWAYS remained the same, and they never have changed, and never will.
7: Science is superior to religion because science is based on FACTS, while religion contradicts itself and changes its teachings all the time.
8: Science is superior to religion because science progresses, changes, updates, and corrects itself when it receives new information, while religion never does change, but ALWAYS remains the same.
9: Only physical things exist. There is nothing in all of existence which is not physical.
10: Anything from history must be rejected unless it has contemporary non-religious writings in support of it.
11: The dating methods used by scientists may be incorrect, but if you don't accept them as truth, you are a stupid moron.
12: Philosophy is a joke science. A lower class, which doesn't provide evidence of anything, even though science and logic are actually PART OF philosophy.
13: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence -- let the "Argument From Personal Incredulity" be damned!
14: You must accept all claims of scientists for what happened in history, but if you accept what historians say about history, you're STUPID!------------------------
The New Logical Fallacies of 2015
As a deep-thinker, huge fan of logic, and a self-made philosopher, I am officially presenting and submitting the following items which I have labeled as NEW logical fallacies.
I am asking for peer-review (from philosophers, logicians, scientists, atheists, theists, Christian apologists, religious people, and any other deep thinkers). Do you think the following items should be labeled as "logical fallacies" beginning in 2015?
Do any of the following items belong inside of a logical argument?
"The Double-Standard Fallacy:" Accepting one form of evidence for your own claims, while simultaneously rejecting this form of evidence for your opponent's argument.
"The Tree-Falling Fallacy:" This argument goes something like this: 'If a tree falls in the woods and no one recorded it, it never happened,' or 'If no one wrote a book about Alexander the Great, that means he never existed.'
"The Goat-Herder Fallacy:" Attributing automatic falsehood (and rejecting the arguments of) anyone based on their profession or career. Example: 'I reject the Bible because it is written by goat-herders.'
"The Contemporary Fallacy," (also known as "The JFK Fallacy"): This fallacy goes like this: 'Any books written about President Kennedy after his death in 1963 must be rejected as myth, since they were not written about him while he was alive.'
"Telephone-Game Fallacy:" Automatically assuming that adults cannot accurately relay facts to other adults, based on a popular children's game.
"The Uneducated Fallacy:" Attributing a lack of education to your opponent simply for holding views that are different or opposite from your views.
"The Truth Fallacy:" (also known as "The Mislabel Fallacy"): Re-defining the word "truth" or "evidence" to only apply to the position that you support, or to the kind of evidence which supports your argument, but not your opponent's argument. For example: 'Only science can be accepted as truth or evidence,' or 'Only the Bible can be accepted as truth or evidence.'
"The Auto-Myth Fallacy:" Automatically assuming that an ancient book is myth because it is ancient, or automatically assuming a book is myth if it does not agree with your worldview.
"The Bias-Fallacy:" Attributing more bias to anyone who has a different view from yours, than you attribute to the people who hold your view.
"Extraordinary-Fallacy:" Automatically labeling something false because it sounds extraordinary to you.
"The Born-This-Way Fallacy:" Claiming that the best argument is always the one which most closely resembles the knowledge you were born with. For example, 'Atheism is a much better option than theism, because everyone is born without knowledge of God.' This would be fallacious since everyone is also born without knowledge of science, logic, math, etc.
"The Current Science Fallacy:" Declaring that your opponent's argument must be rejected, or the Bible or any book must be rejected because it doesn't agree with today's current science, even though today's current science may change and be outdated tomorrow.I am asking for peer-review (from philosophers, logicians, scientists, atheists, theists, Christian apologists, religious people, and any other deep thinkers). Do you think the following items should be labeled as "logical fallacies" beginning in 2015?
Do any of the following items belong inside of a logical argument?
"The Double-Standard Fallacy:" Accepting one form of evidence for your own claims, while simultaneously rejecting this form of evidence for your opponent's argument.
"The Tree-Falling Fallacy:" This argument goes something like this: 'If a tree falls in the woods and no one recorded it, it never happened,' or 'If no one wrote a book about Alexander the Great, that means he never existed.'
"The Goat-Herder Fallacy:" Attributing automatic falsehood (and rejecting the arguments of) anyone based on their profession or career. Example: 'I reject the Bible because it is written by goat-herders.'
"The Contemporary Fallacy," (also known as "The JFK Fallacy"): This fallacy goes like this: 'Any books written about President Kennedy after his death in 1963 must be rejected as myth, since they were not written about him while he was alive.'
"Telephone-Game Fallacy:" Automatically assuming that adults cannot accurately relay facts to other adults, based on a popular children's game.
"The Uneducated Fallacy:" Attributing a lack of education to your opponent simply for holding views that are different or opposite from your views.
"The Truth Fallacy:" (also known as "The Mislabel Fallacy"): Re-defining the word "truth" or "evidence" to only apply to the position that you support, or to the kind of evidence which supports your argument, but not your opponent's argument. For example: 'Only science can be accepted as truth or evidence,' or 'Only the Bible can be accepted as truth or evidence.'
"The Auto-Myth Fallacy:" Automatically assuming that an ancient book is myth because it is ancient, or automatically assuming a book is myth if it does not agree with your worldview.
"The Bias-Fallacy:" Attributing more bias to anyone who has a different view from yours, than you attribute to the people who hold your view.
"Extraordinary-Fallacy:" Automatically labeling something false because it sounds extraordinary to you.
"The Born-This-Way Fallacy:" Claiming that the best argument is always the one which most closely resembles the knowledge you were born with. For example, 'Atheism is a much better option than theism, because everyone is born without knowledge of God.' This would be fallacious since everyone is also born without knowledge of science, logic, math, etc.
"The Raised-This-Way Fallacy:" Claiming that the best argument is the one most closely matching the status or knowledge you were raised with.
Conclusion (for now):
Many atheist arguments boil down to this (once you remove all the fancy words and hyperbole):
1:) I don't like the idea of God.
2:) I don't like the Bible.
3:) I hate the morals found in the Bible.
4:) I believe you should only accept science, even though I accept other things in my life.
Let me know what you think in the comments below. I welcome ANY and ALL comments, opinions, arguments, refutations, suggestions, etc.