Their arguments are beneath us. Destroy them anyway.

Their arguments are beneath us. Destroy them anyway. September 16, 2011

Whenever I post a rebuttal, friends and fans alike often wonder aloud if I think the arguments to which I’m responding are low-hanging fruit.

The answer is simple: yes.  Yes they are.  The arguments made by the theists I respond to are beneath me.  They’re beneath the people reading the blog (who are generally quick to exclaim that those arguments are not worth their time).  It’s not that I or any of the readers of my blog are just so damn good, it’s that the arguments I rebut here are all horrible and easy to dissect.

So why do I use a portion of my dwindling, precious time kicking over the intellectual equivalent of garden gnomes?  Because low-hanging though they are, they’re the only fruit on the tree.

If you don’t think that the champions of apologetics frequently use phrenic sludge like the cosmological argument, you are mistaken.  Think arguments from ignorance are reserved for only the bottom of the theological barrel?  Listen to the PhD-wielding advocates of the Discovery Institute sometime – it’s all they do.  Yes, the layman doesn’t use as much polysyllabic language and jargon, but the arguments are precisely the same.

In fact, do you know why your everyday church-goers all use the same set of bad arguments?  Because they dredge them from all the same people – the noble and grand apologists for religion, most of which are separated from the people in the pews only by their greater dexterity at moving the goalposts or playing ‘hide the point’.  Sure, most believers come up with Pascal’s Wager on their own, but the moral argument (gag), the fine-tuning argument (yak), the argument from purpose (hurl), and all the others are being fed to them from the pulpit and/or the books of their prominent ‘thinkers’.  In fact, I’ve done this long enough that, based on the language theists use, I can generally tell from which high profile apologist they took the argument.

In 2010 I went to church regularly for a year.  I made a point of not standing to sing or pray.  I just sat there and took notes.  After the service, like white blood cells to an infection, the church regulars came.  Each time I quickly identified myself as an atheist and asked why I should believe any of it.  The arguments I got each and every time were the same ones I get in emails and in comments.  These are the arguments normal people use, and so they are the ones that get shredded on this blog.  Try going to a church some Sunday morning and asking those in the pews or even the pastor why you should accept the claims they make.  See if you don’t get the same nonsense.  Hope you’re ready for the argument from complexity because you’re gonna get it almost every, single time (and almost always the Lee Strobel version).

And do you know why they continue to make the same stinky weak lame unfathomably stupid bad arguments?  Because most of the atheists who are aware of how torpid those arguments are think that responding to them would be a waste of time or because ‘those arguments have been rebutted already’.  Awesome and true!  But it’s not enough.  Religious people don’t generally go out looking for rebuttals to their position (otherwise most of them would drop their arguments after five minutes on google).  More often than not (by far) they go to apologetics websites and lift out arguments they rarely understand, but that they think confirm their belief.  And then, like a mother bird returning to the wrong nest, they rush to regurgitate them to us.  This means that even though their arguments have already been demolished into their fundamental particles, the theist is generally unaware of it.  It is our job to make them, and anybody else watching, aware of it.

Ignoring theological arguments, no matter how rancid, removes the social penalties that could be bearing down on theists for firing those arguments off whenever they please.  As a result, few believers wind up thinking to themselves, “hrm, I got my fanny handed to me in a sling the last time I used this argument, maybe I shouldn’t make it in public again or maybe I should try a different approach.”  In a world where reason receives the primacy it’s due, believers would double-think themselves every time they consider opening their mouths to tell someone about Jesus.  Sadly, they don’t.  But god dammit they should.

As I have written before:

Part of why people stay religious is because it is easy to do.  I seek to make it less easy.  I seek to create a world where people cannot open their mouths to tell someone about Jesus without wondering if, without the obligatory respect to which religion has grown accustomed, the target of their evangelism will make a public fool of them.  I dream of a world where irrationality knows no sanctuary and no quarter outside the cathedral.

Responding to this nonsense in public not only sets a precedent that bad arguments will not be suffered kindly (regardless of how loudly they cry ‘meanie!’), but it also serves another purpose.  All reliable polling, without exception, confirms that atheists are the fastest growing ‘religious’ (pbbbbbbt!) demographic in the country by far – by far.  That means we’re having a huge influx of people who have not heard the rebuttals to the standard menu of pro-god arguments.  I know that personally almost all of my arguments and rebuttals, distilled to their purest form, are taken from other thinkers.  The same is likely true of all of us.

It all boils down to our need to be visible.  For centuries we have hoped that people would just come around to the realization that the arguments of theists suck all by themselves.  But most often they don’t manage that, and a public, consistent record of religious people getting their intellectual derrières kicked so hard that diarrhea comes out their metaphorical faces is a fantastic way to make their flaccid case for god’s existence truly obsolete in our society.

So the next time you think it’s not worth your time to publicly dissect a religious assertion, remember that you are being an enabler for them.  They’re going to gain confidence and go dump that argument on other people.  Then the next time an apologist or their priest is feeding them that line, they won’t have the antidote percolating inside their head.  And the next target of the argument may not have the response ready to rock like you or I.  There is a tremendous utility, and a tremendous good to be had in responding to these arguments.

And if you don’t want to hurt their feelings, just remember that by not explaining why they’re wrong you’re setting them up with a strong impudence to go charging in with that argument to do battle with real meanies like me.  😛  Be the gentle atheist and get to them first.  😉

"Evolution within species is not evolution. It is natural selection. Evolution is supposed to show ..."

Disproving Evolution – Part 15 – ..."
"Populations do not evolve. Populations show you they are not evolving. Unless you are referring ..."

Disproving Evolution – Part 15 – ..."
"You don't seem to get it. The bible is quite interesting and says some true ..."

Am I evil for pointing out ..."

Browse Our Archives