Contradictory atheist arguments

Oct 2019
609
44
USA
Not contradictory at all.

Children, when born, do not believe in God and do not believe in Santa. They are indoctrinated into believing in both.
...or in Charles Darwin.

Eventually a child stops believing in Santa but (in most cases) does not stop believing in God. Thus belief in God is a holdover from childhood.
As is belief in Charles Darwin. (Such as the myth that he solely invented an evolutionary theory, when it's just one of many theories of evolution, and on some level, has been just a simple folk belief since the days of ancient Greece.
 
Jun 2018
1,140
395
Toronto
1. "All children are atheists until they are indoctrinated into religion".

2. "Religion is a holdover from childhood - like believing in Santa Claus, until they grow out of it".

So which one is true? They can't both be right. Are they "born atheists" until they become religious, or "born theist" until they become atheist?

Depends on which priest's lap they will land. How about you fix your pedophile priest problems?
 
Jul 2008
19,027
12,885
Virginia Beach, VA
...or in Charles Darwin.


As is belief in Charles Darwin. (Such as the myth that he solely invented an evolutionary theory, when it's just one of many theories of evolution, and on some level, has been just a simple folk belief since the days of ancient Greece.
Once taught about Darwin it is not difficult to confirm what you were taught independently.

you can’t do that with what you are taught about God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: foundit66
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
Once taught about Darwin it is not difficult to confirm what you were taught independently.

you can’t do that with what you are taught about God.
Taught the name for God isn't the same thing as learning the concept.

And as mentioned, I've shown that the myth you were taught about Charles Darwin doesn't hold up to snuff, and at best he was a latecomer to the evolution scene, devising his theory in the 1800s, when others had been theorizing about evolution since ancient Greece. Who knows? At worst he could have stolen or appropriated his theory from others who had devised theirs independently, and taken all the credit for it.

He's a simple myth for simply people who use his as a surrgote for whatever god they otherwise would be worshipping (just as those who worship idols or gods in general use them all as a surrogate for God).

Evolution is a simple, ugly theory, for simple, ugly people.
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
39,825
27,630
La La Land North
Taught the name for God isn't the same thing as learning the concept.

And as mentioned, I've shown that the myth you were taught about Charles Darwin doesn't hold up to snuff, and at best he was a latecomer to the evolution scene, devising his theory in the 1800s, when others had been theorizing about evolution since ancient Greece. Who knows? At worst he could have stolen or appropriated his theory from others who had devised theirs independently, and taken all the credit for it.

He's a simple myth for simply people who use his as a surrgote for whatever god they otherwise would be worshipping (just as those who worship idols or gods in general use them all as a surrogate for God).

Evolution is a simple, ugly theory, for simple, ugly people.
The only thing you are showing is that you lack understanding of scientific method, science, evolution or any other technical subject.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tecoyah
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
The only thing you are showing is that you lack understanding of scientific method, science, evolution or any other technical subject.
I understand them enough to know that they're just one of many potential methodologies, which is popular in industry for pragmatic reasons, but is very limited in its scope of knowledge.

And that most of what people argue is merely faith in science as an institution, or arguments from authority - not from having invented or tested any of the theories themselves.
 

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
39,825
27,630
La La Land North
I understand them enough to know that they're just one of many potential methodologies, which is popular in industry for pragmatic reasons, but is very limited in its scope of knowledge.

And that most of what people argue is merely faith in science as an institution, or arguments from authority - not from having invented or tested any of the theories themselves.
You keep saying that but you are incapable of listing any of these other methodologies you keep referring to. Are you making baby jesus cry again?

And have you seen jesus, have you experienced heaven? Are you not succumbing to arguments from authority? I can, and have a times gone into a lab and attempt to reproduce an experiment that lead to a scientific discovery. Either it will, or it won't and I can publish my results and gain fame and a little bit of riches. Can you do anything analogous to confirm your myths?
 
  • Like
Reactions: imaginethat
Oct 2019
609
44
USA
You keep saying that but you are incapable of listing any of these other methodologies you keep referring to. Are you making baby jesus cry again?

And have you seen jesus, have you experienced heaven? Are you not succumbing to arguments from authority? I can, and have a times gone into a lab and attempt to reproduce an experiment that lead to a scientific discovery. Either it will, or it won't and I can publish my results and gain fame and a little bit of riches. Can you do anything analogous to confirm your myths?
I don't need to. I can read, deduce, or inquire into whatever floats my fancy.

Explain how your industry is different from any others, such as... er… ballet?
 

imaginethat

Forum Staff
Oct 2010
69,243
29,059
Colorado
There is difference between believing something exists, despite the complete lack of evidence, and not believing something exists, because there is no evidence.
To you.

Removing subjectivity from that equation presents a substantial challenge.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2014
15,513
9,596
massachusetts
To you.

Removing subjectivity from that equation presents a substantial challenge.
Everything is subjective, it's the only way things can be perceived.
But for me, and for an increasingly large portion of the worlds population, gods are all stored in the same bucket.
That bucket is "Things people used to believe, in the old days, but don't anymore".

It's what happens when you find yourself calling yourself an agnostic, and people want to emphasize that "there could be a God, the Bible could be True", until you get to the point where you say, "No, there isn't a God and the Bible is nonsense"
Because that's where the evidence points.