Bad atheist arguments

[Questioner]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

 

[BULLDOG]

What a long list of silly. When you come up with reasonable evidence of a god, any god, let me know.

 

[ding]

Pete said "there is no god"
Joe said "there is no god"
allen said "there is no god"
alex said "there is no god"

^^^ an example of an atheist’s argument.

 

[rightwinger]

None of those are atheist arguments.

We are not “born” atheists. We just hear the rhetoric coming out of organized religions and decide that it doesn’t sound true.

It is that simple

 

[Questioner]

What a long list of silly. When you come up with reasonable evidence of a god, any god, let me know.

"Reasonable" evidence, as par the arbitrary parameters of Bacon's method?

By that same definition, there is no evidence for the existence of Charles Darwin or Issac Newton, so that argument from authority is not applied consistently, and almost akin to just being pedantic, demanding one standard of evidence for one thing, but not consistently for others or in the case of others, which are taken for granted, "common sense", or what not.

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a theory

 

[Questioner]

None of those are atheist arguments.

We are not “born” atheists. We just hear the rhetoric coming out of organized religions and decide that it doesn’t sound true.

It is that simple

Then one who hears the rhetoric of various secular beliefs systems and ideologies, and insipid arguments from authority and indoctrination, rather than education or free thinking, and decides it isn't true is of the same variety.

Not to mention, there are "religions" and religious notions or ideas which are skeptical of organized systems of belief, much as there are organized systems of belief which are "secular" or philosophical, such as Secular Humanism, and its positive beliefs and axioms which are held on faith, and not reducible or nonfloatable with a mere "lack of belief" in a god.

If one for example, believes that murder or rape is wrong, on the basis of Common Law theory, which is informed by older legal systems, including religious ones such as "Exodus", or the golden rule in general (in regards to respect for people, their property, their family, their autonomy), that in itself is, or could easily be argued to be a "religious" belief to begin with, or at least a belief held to on faith, not "testable" per the parameters of Bacon's methodology, and society being the better off for it, as having faith that murder or rape is wrong, is probably better than being "skeptical" of those notions.

Just as there are atheistic philosophies or worldviews, whether Sade, Stirner, LeVay, or others who reject all or part of the "golden rule", and therefore could easily argue in favor of rape or murder or child molestation, unable to assert these things are "wrong" to begin with, without appealing to faith in the golden rule, or in "religious" systems, or those informed by them, rather than "scientific evidence" in the Baconian sense, such as Common Law theory.

Scientific evidence, could of course be used to argue in favor of racism, sexism, homophobia, and so on, however a Secular Humanist believes on faith that these things are wrong, and will intentionally, probably for the better, rather use the same evidence to argue against these things rather than for them, on the basis of its faith-based axioms..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

Straw man fallacies, lies, and ridiculous sophistry.

 

[captkaos]

What a long list of silly. When you come up with reasonable evidence of a god, any god, let me know.

WOW ! We agree on something ! More people have died in the support of Their "gods" than any other reason in human history. Humans worship so many gods it's hard to count! Please! Someone tell me which entity I should believe in ! Sheep!

 

[Questioner]

Evolution is a FACT
God is a theory

Please stop repeating childish slogans like that which just show one's own misinformation.

A "fact" is a piece of information; theories are abstractions (e.x. mathematical constructs) built from facts, or information.

So no, evolution is not "a fact", it's a theory or approximation built from facts. (e.x. The simple physical similarities between humans and animals have been folk wisdom or common observations since the ancient Greeks and before, however it was Darwin who used said information to build his own theory out of it).

So no, in the sense of being abstractions, built from information, both evolution and theories about God are just that, theories or abstractions built from, or on the basis of something or another, regardless of one beliefs to be the inherent merits of one or the other (e.x. appealing to the authority of Francis Bacon's scientific method).

 

[Questioner]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

Straw man fallacies, lies, and ridiculous sophistry.

Nah...

 

[K9Buck]

I'm still waiting for an atheist to tell me what can cause itself to come into existence. But every time I ask they...

 

[Questioner]

What a long list of silly. When you come up with reasonable evidence of a god, any god, let me know.

WOW ! We agree on something ! More people have died in the support of Their "gods" than any other reason in human history. Humans worship so many gods it's hard to count! Please! Someone tell me which entity I should believe in ! Sheep!

You're conflating a "god", as in a simplistic graven image depicting a human-like or anthropological being, with "God", a supreme being of the entire cosmos, not physical or viewable to the naked eye, but merely depicted in iconography for the sake of simplicity.

(I believe this is why even ancient religion, such as Exodus forbid the construction of graven images or idols, since they were worried that the superstitious might conflate the idol or image itself, with God, or the abstract entity which it represented).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What a long list of silly. When you come up with reasonable evidence of a god, any god, let me know.

"Reasonable" evidence, as par the arbitrary parameters of Bacon's method?

By that same definition, there is no evidence for the existence of Charles Darwin or Issac Newton, so that argument from authority is not applied consistently, and almost akin to just being pedantic, demanding one standard of evidence for one thing, but not consistently for others or in the case of others, which are taken for granted, "common sense", or what not.

There is no 'god' as perceived by theists; religion and 'god" are creations of man.

 

[Questioner]

What a long list of silly. When you come up with reasonable evidence of a god, any god, let me know.

"Reasonable" evidence, as par the arbitrary parameters of Bacon's method?

By that same definition, there is no evidence for the existence of Charles Darwin or Issac Newton, so that argument from authority is not applied consistently, and almost akin to just being pedantic, demanding one standard of evidence for one thing, but not consistently for others or in the case of others, which are taken for granted, "common sense", or what not.

There is no 'god' as perceived by theists;

Non-sequitur, begging the question, and so on.

religion and 'god" are creations of man.

The idea or theory that religions or god are the creation of man, Is a creation of man.

 

[captkaos]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

Straw man fallacies, lies, and ridiculous sophistry.

Let me explain this so absolutely nobody will be able to figure out what I'm saying. Thanks Professor Derp!

 

[alang1216]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

I've lived a good long time and I've never encountered anything that is definitely supernatural. Until I do I won't be taking the word of someone who took the word of someone who took the word of someone...

 

[K9Buck]

I've lived a good long time and I've never encountered anything that is definitely supernatural. Until I do I won't be taking the word of someone who took the word of someone who took the word of someone...

Fair enough.

Ask yourself this. What can cause itself to exist?

 

[Questioner]

I've seen some atheists argue in favor of atheism simply because they "were born" into an atheist household or culture, or silly folk wisdom of like that - or just because follow whoever their favorite atheist media personality is (e.x. Dawkins, Harris, etc).

This is a silly argument, since this of course means if you'd been born into an Islamic country, or hadn't been indoctrinated into atheism, by your parents, teachers, or whatever cultural forces influence your views, you'd be a Muslim, or if you started following an Muslim media personality, you'd be one by mere virture of blindly parroting whatever the commenter or "guru" says.

A lot of atheists, falsely conflate science (or Francis' Bacon's specific methodology of science, to be more specific) with atheism, just as they falsely or dishonestly conflate atheism with "secular religions", philosophies, or belief systems (e.x. Secular Humanism, and its list of positive beliefs or faith-based axioms, which are not simply a "lack of belief" in a God, potentially running contrary to scientific arguments and information as well).

As a wonderful example of the simplistic, anti-intellectual arguments often used by atheists - one is the simple argument of "not believing in a God because I don't believe in Santa Claus).

This is a bad and silly argument, since it's akin to dismissing the idea of aliens by equating beliefs or theories about aliens with "Marvin the Martian".

Generally, it's because an atheist has a simplistic, icongraphic image of God or a God in the form of a physical entity, such as how God is portraryed in popular media, or in artwork such as Michelangelo's Creation of Adam (when, even during the era of the Medieval Catholic Church, this was silly, and it was known that such icons or images were not "God himself", but merely used to represent God, being an abstract, transcendent concept depicted via an image for simplicity's sake).

The other silly argument is that "I don't believe in anything which I can't see with my own eyes" - this is just simple folk wisdom and superstitions harkening back to the ancient Greeks, and immediate dismisses any and all scientific theories or bodies of abstraction if one is consistent (as an example, ancient Greeks observed phenomina such as gravity, but didn't construct scientific theories or laws from said information, as thinkers such as Newton did, rather just attributing it to the random, chaotic whims of pagan gods or goddesses). This ends up conflating "folk wisdom" and anti-intellectualism, and the marketing or branding slogans erroneously associated with it (e.x. "reason", "skeptic", "freethinker"); which is why beliefs in various evolutionary theories, or the theory that 'mankind descended from animals, or came from nature' have been "common sense" or folk wisdom as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, due to being fairly simplistic physical observations, not nonfloatable with the invention or development of more complex theories based on said observations, such as theories of evolution attributed to Darwin, or in the context of legal philosophy.

(Much as "atheism" in some form or another, has been folk wisdom as far back as Epicurus and so forth, being based on emotional or sentimental whims, and showing it has nothing or very little to do with any modern incarnation of scientific theories or institutions).

All scientific theories are approximations invented and created from mathematics, dealing with mental concepts and abstractions which aren't visible to the naked eye - such as Newton taking information such as the orbit of planets, the falling of apples from trees, and using mathematical approximations to develop it into a grand, unified theory of gravity.

The other terrible argument usually just boils down to making an argument from authority on behalf of Bacon's scientific method, and arguing that concepts such as "God" are outside the scope of said institution and its parameters. (If practiced consistently, this also dismissed Secular Humanism, and its faith-based philosophical beliefs, none of which are "empirical", "repeatable", "testable" by the parameters of Bacon's method, much as the mythical historical teleology behind Bacon's method and the development thereof is just historical myth, often entirely false or inaccurate, and not empirical, reputable, or testable by the parameters of Baconian scientific institutions and methodologies.

Nor are other concepts, abstractions or theories (such as legal theory, as in the case of the Common Law), which people take for granted, despite not being "scientific" in the Baconian sense, showing that, in practice, the argument of authority used by atheists in regards to concepts outside the scope of Bacon's method, is only used when it's convenient (e.x. as a dismissal of "religion", based on dishonest or false notions of what "religion" is to begin with, generally solely conflating it with "mythology"), while not applying the same consistency to Secular Humanism, or other secular philosophies such as Utilitarianism, which are not "scientific" theories, and would likewise have to be dismissed as being outside the scope of Bacon's method as well.

I've lived a good long time and I've never encountered anything that is definitely supernatural. Until I do I won't be taking the word of someone who took the word of someone who took the word of someone...

"Supernatural" is a meaningless descriptor.

Thoughts, or ideas, or abstractions are not "natural", as in made of earthy or material things, so by that odd definition, one could easily argue that thoughts themselves are "supernatural".

Much as scientific theories or ideas could be said to be, as in the fact that while they may be based on natural phenomina, the theories, abstractions or mathematical approximations which the theories are invented or developed from, are not.

 

[Questioner]

What a long list of silly. When you come up with reasonable evidence of a god, any god, let me know.

"Reasonable" evidence, as par the arbitrary parameters of Bacon's method?

By that same definition, there is no evidence for the existence of Charles Darwin or Issac Newton, so that argument from authority is not applied consistently, and almost akin to just being pedantic, demanding one standard of evidence for one thing, but not consistently for others or in the case of others, which are taken for granted, "common sense", or what not.

There is no 'god' as perceived by theists;

Non-sequitur, begging the question, and so on.

religion and 'god" are creations of man.

The idea or theory that religions or god are the creation of man, Is a creation of man.

For that matter, scientific theories, or any body of theory or abstraction, such as common law or Constitutional law, are "man made", or creations of man in the since you are describing, but that shouldn't in itself diminish their validity, or the inherent principles upon which such theories are founded or invented to begin with.

Please also describe what "god", as perceived by theists is to exist.