5 atheist arguments you can stop using

[DetlefK]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-atheist-arguments-which-arent-helping-anyone/

The break-down:

5. Scientific proof means literally nothing to believers. Stop demanding that they prove what they believe. You sound to them like a cracy-person for NOT believing without proof.

4. Stop pointing out logical errors in their belief-system. Again, logic means nothing to them. If mathematics say one thing and religious claims say something else, the mathematics are wrong. Always.

3. Stop badmouthing a religion for the barbaric horror-porn in their holy text. Very, very few believers are fundamentalists and most believers have a unique belief, with the supposed "holy text" merely a loose inspiration. (The holy text will be ignored or defended on a case-by-case-basis.)

2. Religion has become ingrained into society, culture and politics. You cannot blame wars on religion without taking those other factors into account. For example: Nobody has ever declared a Holy War to invade a barren and worthless landscape where nobody wants to live in the first place.

1. Stop attacking the specific faith of a specific person. (see 3.) Atheism isn't about defeating believers. And it's a waste of time to try to destroy every single, unique religious belief that every single, unique person holds.





----------------------------

re 5: I suggest pointing out the merits of the scientific method and encouraging people to compare the scientific method and faith.

The scientific method came to be when mathematics was added to the experimental magic of the Renaissance. Magic in turn came to be, when the concept of laws of nature entered the religious mainstream. Evolutionairily speaking, science is a more complex, more sophisticated successor of religion. Science was specifically designed to deliver answers about nature that religion can't deliver.

Get people to use the scientific method and they will grow distant from religion all by themselves over time.



re 1: I once had developed a theological proof that disproved God. I posted it on a mathematical forum. And I got a shit-ton of criticism how my notation wasn't mathematical and how clumsy the structure of my proof was. No one pointed out logical errors though. What really struck me was the complaint that I only disproved one very specific kind of God. The commenter asked me to rather come up with a disproof of all the possible Gods anybody could think off.

The morals of the story: For every one God you disprove, two new Gods will be made up that specifically pass this proof.