Top 10 atheist strawmen

[idunno]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=7NgCJeSMHcw&sdig=1

interesting video. Still i have a roblem with a god who wasnt created himself.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's another waste of time. Couldn't you find a shorter version?

[Safe-Keeper]

First of all, he doesn't understand what a strawman is (for reference, a "strawman argument" is when you put words into your opponents mouth, saying he said something he didn't. On to the actual points:

#1: God does not exist.
Misunderstanding of Burden of Proof.

#2: The "can God create a rock so heavy that God himself can't lift it" paradox
I applaud him for trying to take on this one:), but he really just comes down to avoiding the question and making a flawed comparison to another question which is not a paradox. He also seems to contradict himself, first saying God is all-powerful and then admitting there's things He can't do:).

#3: Who created God?
He's making it too difficult for himself here. If God can always have existed, then why not the universe?

He actually sets up a lot of strawmen himself, and has a good deal of flawed impressions of his own and others' religions.

I think the guy's actually pretty smart and might become an atheist some day. It almost sounds like he hesitates at points because he realizes he's not really making sense.

[idunno]

First of all, he doesn't understand what a strawman is (for reference, a "strawman argument" is when you put words into your opponents mouth, saying he said something he didn't. On to the actual points:

#1: God does not exist.
Misunderstanding of Burden of Proof.

#2: The "can God create a rock so heavy that God himself can't lift it" paradox
I applaud him for trying to take on this one:), but he really just comes down to avoiding the question and making a flawed comparison to another question which is not a paradox. He also seems to contradict himself, first saying God is all-powerful and then admitting there's things He can't do:).

#3: Who created God?
He's making it too difficult for himself here. If God can always have existed, then why not the universe?

He actually sets up a lot of strawmen himself, and has a good deal of flawed impressions of his own and others' religions.

I think the guy's actually pretty smart and might become an atheist some day. It almost sounds like he hesitates at points because he realizes he's not really making sense.

typically the comments in the link are moderated:mad:

[automatthias]

Disabled ratings and moderated comments - only positive comments published. FAIL.

[Abdul Alhazred]

#3: Who created God?


I am what is called a "strong atheist", yet I have never understood the cogency of this argument (supposedly the "crusher").

For one thing, there is evidence the universe had a beginning.

I'd say Occam's razor would tend to militate against the universe having been created by a patriarchal humanoid intelligence with an unhealthy interest in our private lives.

But that is not proof. ;)

[Safe-Keeper]

At least he didn't pull the typical fundie trick of waiting 'til someone gives him five stars for then to disable rating;).

Watched some more of the video. He spouts some more strawmen on atheists (oh, the irony!), says that since he's not obligated to prevent evil (which he calls "controlling you", and yes, this disturbs me, too), then God isn't, either. I hate the free will cop-out.

My favorite so far is the "well, you can't say evil exists in the first place"-line, though.
typically the comments in the link are moderated:mad:Otherwise he might get rational comments, and we wouldn't wantt that, would we?

[ImaginalDisc]

Ah, VenomFangX, the kid who believes that the Grand Canyon could have been created by Noah's Flood in a matter of five minutes.

[joobz]

For a good degree of humor, I suggest tracking the Venomfangx and Thunderf00t channels.


VFX has definitely impoved his production quality and has become a bit more civil, but he continually shuts his mind off to reason.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

For a good degree of humor, I suggest tracking the Venomfangx and Thunderf00t channels.

Total Classic:

BS5vid4GkEY

[Aerik]

Did you really just post a venomfangx video? Barf!

[shadron]

VFX and Hovind's son, and several other YECs have joined together to create their own YEC website complete with the typically boring, 25 minute talking-head videos. Particularly odious are the ones where one person talks and the other acts as the straight/yes-man; occasionally they trade off. I presume they are on the lookout for some kind of graphics guru who can pep up their polemics with some eye candy. If you're into self-flagellation, give it a visit. Unfortunately, I neglected to bookmark it when I visited it after being told about it, so I can't yield a URL. Silly me.

[Steelmage]

First post:

Ah, but if nothing created God (I will not get into the agruement of how something that never existed before created itself), then nothing exist, all is an illusion as the New Age people said it is. :)

Somehow I do not think so.

[gdnp]

Well named. almost all the arguments are straw men arguments.

[plumjam]

God 101 for philosophically naive atheists:

RQTALEIMRKY

[joobz]

God 101 for philosophically naive atheists:

RQTALEIMRKY
Ohhhh, it makes so much sense now!!!:rolleyes:

[gdnp]

Ohhhh, it makes so much sense now!!!:rolleyes:

I don't think math was his strong suit, particularly his understanding of the properties of infinities. Nor does he seem to have a grasp of relativistic theories of space-time. "space is the separation between two objects, so space cannot be infinite"

Bottom line: talk real fast to people who understand science and math even less than you do, and TA DA! proof of God.

[Wowbagger]

1. "There is no God". This strawman is a strawman. Atheists will, more often say "There is not likely any god". Atheists are well aware that they cannot prove a negative. But, to prove god exists, you need more evidence than just photos of a bunch of things exist in the Universe. (none of which are photos of God, I might add)

2. "Can an all powerful god create a rock too heavy for him to lift?" I never heard an atheist use this to refute the existence of God. It hardly smacks of scientific integrity, at any rate.

3. "Who created God?" His refutation does not address how this question is used, which is in the context of Intelligent Design. If only an Intelligence can design and create intelligent life, then who created the Intelligent Designer? It is a valid question, in that context.

4. "The Bible was Written by Man". He admits this is true. He claims, though, that the Bible was able to predict the future, and therefore must be from Holy inspiration. But, most of that prediction stuff was actually post-diction- looking back at old text and shoehorning it into events that actually occurred, while also making up stories based on the stories written in the past.

5. "There are so many religions" – Again, he tries to refute this with predictions. He neglects to mention that most of those other religions make the same claim of predictions. (You know, the first book in the Lord of the Rings predicts certain things that will happen in the last book, but that has not become a religious Bible, yet.)

6. "How can anyone claim to know the truth?" The problem is that even religions change over time: Their version of what constitutes Absolute Truth varies from generation to generation. Just like everyone else's form of truth.

7. "Everyone has their own beliefs" He correctly states that some beliefs are true, and others are not. However, he never addresses the quality of evidence required to determine if something is true or not. So, he does not actually refute this one.

8. "Jesus was just a good man, not god" - Toss out the word "good", and it becomes an argument he has not refuted yet. Most atheists think Jesus did not even exist, in any form. Those that think he was just a man, would hardly claim he was a good one, near as I can tell.

9. "Why is there evil?" - I think a better question would be: "Given that there is evil in the world, who has had the better reputation of reducing its effects? Irrational leaders, or rational leaders?" Otherwise, the question as stated is a straw man. Goodness, despite what he states, does not need to come from any god-like entity, it can emerge (and change over time) as a consequence of human interests and needs.

10. "I believe in evolution". Another strawman. Atheists do not believe in evolution. They accept it as fact. Why? Because it is so darn good at unraveling the mysteries of life, and fighting ever-transforming diseases, and saving endangered species, etc. Since when as a Bible-thumper ever been able to do all that?

[Wowbagger]

God 101 for philosophically naive atheists:Good philosophy! At least that would be so, if one wasn't doing anything important with it.

See that computer you are using, plumjam? That was the product of physicists, doing real physics. How many such cool inventions came from the minds of god philosophers?

[joobz]

Wowbanger, nice summation. Although, if you do not mind, i'd like to respond to some of it.

1. "There is no God". This strawman is a strawman. Atheists will, more often say "There is not likely any god". Atheists are well aware that they cannot prove a negative. But, to prove god exists, you need more evidence than just photos of a bunch of things exist in the Universe. (none of which are photos of God, I might add) There are the strong atheists who will make this statement. I do not know what percentage of atheists are strong vs. weak vs. agnostic. But since this is obviously far from the stongest atheist argument, its presentation is a strawman.


3. "Who created God?" His refutation does not address how this question is used, which is in the context of Intelligent Design. If only an Intelligence can design and create intelligent life, then who created the Intelligent Designer? It is a valid question, in that context. This is a great point.

4. "The Bible was Written by Man". He admits this is true. He claims, though, that the Bible was able to predict the future, and therefore must be from Holy inspiration. But, most of that prediction stuff was actually post-diction- looking back at old text and shoehorning it into events that actually occurred, while also making up stories based on the stories written in the past.To me, this argument is best made against the claim that the bible is infallible.
By christian philosophy, man is imperfect. As the imperfect medium through which the bible came, the end product must be imperfect. If you pour water through an imperfect filter, you will not have pure water.

8. "Jesus was just a good man, not god" - Toss out the word "good", and it becomes an argument he has not refuted yet. Most atheists think Jesus did not even exist, in any form. Those that think he was just a man, would hardly claim he was a good one, near as I can tell.I do not know if this is true. I've heard the arguments against Jesus' existence, but they seem to be inconclusive. I have no problem believing Jesus was real and that he was a good man. I do not know what relevence it would have otherwise.

10. "I believe in evolution". Another strawman. Atheists do not believe in evolution. They accept it as fact. Why? Because it is so darn good at unraveling the mysteries of life, and fighting ever-transforming diseases, and saving endangered species, etc. Since when as a Bible-thumper ever been able to do all that?
I agree, although I would word it differently. "I accept the theory of evolution as an accurate description of the origin of life's diversity."

[moon1969]

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt. Love is the law, love under will."
-Aleister Crowley-

"Every man and every woman is a star."
-Aleister Crowley-

[Roboramma]

God 101 for philosophically naive atheists:

RQTALEIMRKY

If god is unchanging, how could it create change? To do so means to act, to affect some sort of change.
If god is immaterial and outside of time and space, how could it affect matter in any way in order to create it?
If god is eternal, that is a measure of it's existence in time (ie. for an infinite amount of time) meaning time has always existed.

If I flip a light switch for an infinite amount of time, I will have flipped the switch an infinite number of times. Saying this is impossible is just asserting that it's impossible for an infinite amount of time to pass, it isn't an argument explaining why. In other words he's started with his conclusion.

As to matter, why do we have to start with one piece of matter and add more on one at a time? Why can't an infinite amount of matter always have existed?

What does it mean for something to be infinite, if it isn't made up of an infinite number of finite things?

Moreover, all of this has nothing to do with the christian god - even if all his conclusions were correct we'd be left with something that is eternal, immaterial and created the universe. So? That doesn't even suggest that it's intelligent - considering that it's incapable of change (because it exists outside of time) I don't see how it could be! In some ways that description could describe the laws of nature, no god required.

[gdnp]

1. "There is no God". This strawman is a strawman. Atheists will, more often say "There is not likely any god". Atheists are well aware that they cannot prove a negative. But, to prove god exists, you need more evidence than just photos of a bunch of things exist in the Universe. (none of which are photos of God, I might add)
A more typical athiest argument would be "there is no evidence that compels me to believe in your god, and to believe in such an extraordinary claim without evidence is irrational. "

2. "Can an all powerful god create a rock too heavy for him to lift?" I never heard an atheist use this to refute the existence of God. It hardly smacks of scientific integrity, at any rate.
A better question would be "could an omnipotent god prove his existence to everyone in the world? If so, why doesn't he? Why did he create us as logical beings and then demand that we believe in him based on faith?"

4. "The Bible was Written by Man". He admits this is true. He claims, though, that the Bible was able to predict the future, and therefore must be from Holy inspiration. But, most of that prediction stuff was actually post-diction- looking back at old text and shoehorning it into events that actually occurred, while also making up stories based on the stories written in the past.
He also leaves out the part where the bible contradicts itself: turn the other cheek/who shall cast the first stone vs. eye for an eye, or sins of the fathers being or not being visited upon the sons. IIRC the King James version gave 10,000 stalls in Solomon's stables in one chapter and 1,000 stalls in another. Hardly the work of divine scribes.

5. "There are so many religions" – Again, he tries to refute this with predictions. He neglects to mention that most of those other religions make the same claim of predictions. (You know, the first book in the Lord of the Rings predicts certain things that will happen in the last book, but that has not become a religious Bible, yet.)

And the believers get to tell you what the predictions meant and that they happened, without outside confirmation. No mention of this miraculous star in the writings of Rome or China? No mention of the destruction of Pharaoh's army in the records of Egypt?


6. "How can anyone claim to know the truth?" The problem is that even religions change over time: Their version of what constitutes Absolute Truth varies from generation to generation. Just like everyone else's form of truth.

Try asking them what biblical passage tells them to go to church on Sunday when the sabbath is on Saturday.

8. "Jesus was just a good man, not god" - Toss out the word "good", and it becomes an argument he has not refuted yet. Most atheists think Jesus did not even exist, in any form. Those that think he was just a man, would hardly claim he was a good one, near as I can tell.
Even if we except the "good man," that does not imply "perfect". Benjamim Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, MLK, JFK, Bill Clinton are all reported to have had affairs, yet are commonly thought of (at least by many) as "good men".

9. "Why is there evil?" - I think a better question would be: "Given that there is evil in the world, who has had the better reputation of reducing its effects? Irrational leaders, or rational leaders?" Otherwise, the question as stated is a straw man. Goodness, despite what he states, does not need to come from any god-like entity, it can emerge (and change over time) as a consequence of human interests and needs.
A more difficult contradiction to explain away would be "how can an all-knowing, all-powerful, and benevolent god allow innocents to suffer?"


10. "I believe in evolution". Another strawman. Atheists do not believe in evolution. They accept it as fact. Why? Because it is so darn good at unraveling the mysteries of life, and fighting ever-transforming diseases, and saving endangered species, etc. Since when as a Bible-thumper ever been able to do all that?

Especially since evolution does not rule out a creator.

I think, as I said before, that what he has tried to do is debunk straw men, when in fact the straw men are of his own construction. If he wants to provide a real service, he should answer real challenges to his belief system:

1) why your god over all the other gods?
2) why an omnipotent god would give us such a poorly written mish-mash of contradictory writings as the bible as an instruction book?
3) why do innocents suffer when god could prevent it?
4) why does he not make his existence and desires known in a clear and unambiguous manner?

[joobz]

A more typical athiest argument would be "there is no evidence that compels me to believe in your god, and to believe in such an extraordinary claim without evidence is irrational. "Also the Dawkin's argument, "We are all atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do."

or one could always use the more snarky:
"I'll make it easy. Prove god exists, any god. It need not be the one you believe in."
Even if we except the "good man," that does not imply "perfect". Benjamim Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, MLK, JFK, Bill Clinton are all reported to have had affairs, yet are commonly thought of (at least by many) as "good men".well said.

[Wowbagger]

1) why your god over all the other gods?
2) why an omnipotent god would give us such a poorly written mish-mash of contradictory writings as the bible as an instruction book?
3) why do innocents suffer when god could prevent it?
4) why does he not make his existence and desires known in a clear and unambiguous manner?
Good responses, and I like your questions, too.

One more we can add, that I got from another forum member:

5) What new, significant scientific discoveries have been made, from a purely Creationist level of education?

[DeusPhasmatis]

God 101 for philosophically naive atheists:

RQTALEIMRKY

I want those 8 minutes of my life back.

[Safe-Keeper]

If god is immaterial and outside of time and space, how could it affect matter in any way in order to create it?I hate arguments like "God is outside of space and time", as it shows a complete misunderstanding of what time and logic really are. Another one that gets on my nerves is "God created logic, so He's not bound by its laws". It's just such a ludicrous thing to say that it's a joke. Why on Earth are you automatically not affected by a process if you're the one who started it? It's as if I was to look at a pool and say that since I filled it, I won't get wet if I jump in. It makes absolutely no sense to anyone but the scientifically impaired.

Listened to 10 seconds of the "Philosophy 101" video and gave the poor guy up.

"Who created God" is a fallacy. No one can have created God. If He had been created, He wouldn't have been God.And that's where I shut the video off and decided to go kayaking. Unfortunately, since idiots attract me the same way train wrecks attract people (you want to look away, but you can't), I went on and got to this part:
Either something always existed, or something always existed to create it. Those are the only two possibilities.False dilemma.

At that point, I gave the guy up.

3) why do innocents suffer when god could prevent it?Because we either have 100% Free Will or we're 100% slaves, with nothing in-between (God isn't omnipotent or anything, after all:rolleyes:). And it's not like we humans interfere with each others' free will either. If I see a rape, I'm not going to interfere with the assailant's free will by calling the cops or macing the guy. If I see my buddy step off the curb into the path of a trailer, I'm not going to pull her back onto the pavement, as that'd interfere with her Free Will. Things don't work like that, foo. We'd live in an authoritarian state if we constantly overrode each others decisions or saved people from assaults.

[/sarcasm]

Sorry, had to vent there:). I hate it when people say that even though humans are required to help each others (lots of people saying that the more we can help, the more we should help), an omnipotent God suddenly isn't.

[Graham Ross]

I like TheAmazingAtheist's response to that video:

5ai8Cq3zPuI

[negativ]

For a good degree of humor, I suggest tracking the Venomfangx and Thunderf00t channels.


VFX has definitely impoved his production quality and has become a bit more civil, but he continually shuts his mind off to reason.

Does he still talk with his eyes closed?

[ponderingturtle]

Ah, VenomFangX, the kid who believes that the Grand Canyon could have been created by Noah's Flood in a matter of five minutes.

He does seem a chip off the old block(the old block being his father, Peter Popoff)

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think math was his strong suit, particularly his understanding of the properties of infinities. Nor does he seem to have a grasp of relativistic theories of space-time. "space is the separation between two objects, so space cannot be infinite"

Bottom line: talk real fast to people who understand science and math even less than you do, and TA DA! proof of God.

I don't think it is important that they understand physics less well, you just need to assume a supposed authority position and you will have them.

[fuelair]

First post:

Ah, but if nothing created God (I will not get into the agruement of how something that never existed before created itself), then nothing exist, all is an illusion as the New Age people said it is. :)

Somehow I do not think so.
That's philosophy. All the words of the world do not make it reality. Description of a thing is not the thing.

[joobz]

He does seem a chip off the old block(the old block being his father, Peter Popoff)
Do you a source for this? I can't seem to find anything except another thread on this forum which asserts the same thing.

[quarky]

Is it possible to believe in god and not believe in god simultaneously?

That's what I'd like.

[aggle-rithm]

I'd say Occam's razor would tend to militate against the universe having been created by a patriarchal humanoid intelligence with an unhealthy interest in our private lives.


...and who speaks English with an American accent. Don't forget that part.

[aggle-rithm]

Is it possible to believe in god and not believe in god simultaneously?

That's what I'd like.

Yes...compartmentalization.

Or, you can have your corpus callosum severed, separating the two hemispheres of the brain. Your left hemisphere can be the atheist, while your right can be a Bible-thumping fundamentalist (as long as you thump the Bible with your left hand).

[fuelair]

Yes...compartmentalization.

Or, you can have your corpus callosum severed, separating the two hemispheres of the brain. Your left hemisphere can be the atheist, while your right can be a Bible-thumping fundamentalist (as long as you thump the Bible with your left hand).
or whatever else you choose to "thump" in the privacy of your own secret place.:)

As long as you remember - even in your secret place "Heee" can see you!!

[bokonon]

Do you a source for this? I can't seem to find anything except another thread on this forum which asserts the same thing.
Assuming venomfanqx is a legitimate venomfangx alias (and I see no reason to assume otherwise), he seems to confirm the Peter Popoff relationship here (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6iY-J2VrEXQ), when he says "Presented by Shawn Popoff, son of Peter."
6iY-J2VrEXQ

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

...and who speaks English with an American accent. Don't forget that part.

Really? He's only ever sent me visions. Gotta fire off a complaint!

[Civilized Worm]

God 101 for philosophically naive atheists:

RQTALEIMRKY


Ah that great philosophical mind VenomFangX. Although to be fair, he's probably better at philosophy than he is at science.

[Jimbo07]

As long as you remember - even in your secret place "Heee" can see you!!

The thrill of being caught is half the fun! :D

[V23]

I found his arguments to be rational, intelligent, simplistic, direct and to the point.

[V23]

Of course that doesn't mean that I agree with them . . .

[quixotecoyote]

A more typical athiest argument would be "there is no evidence that compels me to believe in your god, and to believe in such an extraordinary claim without evidence is irrational. "


Even those of us who make the claim "there is no god" will explain, if asked, that we mean it in the same sense as "there is no dinosaur in my bedroom." In other words the epistemic status of god-claims is no different than any other claim of existence/non-existance and treating it as a special case is misleading.

[linusrichard]

God 101 for philosophically naive atheists:

RQTALEIMRKY

Argh. To paraphrase one part of it: Time can't be infinite (that is, stretch infinitely into the past), because if an infinite amount of time had passed before now, we would have never gotten to now. Which makes me think that numbers can't be infinite, because if there exist an infinite number of integers < 8, we couldn't have 8. And we have 8, therefore there must be some lowest number. Maybe it's -1000000. No wait, I forgot about -1000001...

I like TheAmazingAtheist's response to that video:

5ai8Cq3zPuI

Ugh. You lost me at /15:31.

[gdnp]

Argh. To paraphrase one part of it: Time can't be infinite (that is, stretch infinitely into the past), because if an infinite amount of time had passed before now, we would have never gotten to now. Which makes me think that numbers can't be infinite, because if there exist an infinite number of integers < 8, we couldn't have 8. And we have 8, therefore there must be some lowest number. Maybe it's -1000000. No wait, I forgot about -1000001...


I was thinking of that paradox whose name escapes me where an arrow travels half the distance to the target in a finite time and half the remaining distance in a finite time and so on, and thus it takes an infinite number of finite times to reach the target and an infinite number of finite things has to be infinite so the arrow will never hit the target...

[Hokulele]

I was thinking of that paradox whose name escapes me where an arrow travels half the distance to the target in a finite time and half the remaining distance in a finite time and so on, and thus it takes an infinite number of finite times to reach the target and an infinite number of finite things has to be infinite so the arrow will never hit the target...


Zeno's Paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

[Roboramma]

I like TheAmazingAtheist's response to that video:

5ai8Cq3zPuI

That guy was way too annoying to watch - sorry. He may have had some good points, I don't know, I couldn't pay attention to what he was saying because of the way he was saying it.

[Graham Ross]

That guy was way too annoying to watch - sorry. He may have had some good points, I don't know, I couldn't pay attention to what he was saying because of the way he was saying it.

He can't be any more annoying to watch than VenomfangX right?

[joobz]

He can't be any more annoying to watch than VenomfangX right?
Actually, I found him a lot more irritating then VFX. VFX is at least amusing in an ironic kind of way.

AA seemed to be attempting a Lewis Black type rant, but with a comic book guy attitude.

[quarky]

I've decided to bifurcate my personality into ten.
One of my multibles will be devoutly religious.
(I'll call her "Judy")

The rest are atheists.

This is my way of tithing.

[Steelmage]

That's philosophy. All the words of the world do not make it reality. Description of a thing is not the thing.

This is the kind of thing that RAW would say.

[Beerina]

Ah, VenomFangX, the kid who believes that the Grand Canyon could have been created by Noah's Flood in a matter of five minutes.

While that may be exaggerating it a bit, in many cases scientists know, not just think (because it has been observed) that channels can be cut tens of feet or more straight down through rock in one flood. That much grinding gushing water, sand, and boulders is quite the sandpaper. How much in various canyons are due to this, and how much to long-term slow erosion, I don't know.

Indeed, a quick calculation shows that a 1 in 10,000 year flood that grinds out 10 feet can cut a 1-mile channel in about 5.2 million years. And I doubt they're that rare. How much does that leave for "slow erosion" to do? I wonder if slow erosion is a chimera beyond just trivial amounts? There could be a paper in there somewhere...