arguements provided by atheists against religion and God

[Kumar_Das]

Namaste,

This might be of interest to some and you might want to tackle them. So I am just posting.

copying a post from a blog, this person is arguing against Islam but there are some points that might apply for all religions as well.

Top 10 Logical Fallacies Used By Religion

For those who don't know, A logical fallacy is a flawed pattern of reasoning. Something which the religious are professionals at.

In this post I'm going to list my favorite ten logical fallacies used by the religious in arguments. I'll also post their meaning and an example of what the fallacy may look like when used in an argument. I'm sure most of you free-thinkers will recognise many of these from past discussions with religious people.

#1. Argumentum ad ignorantium - Fallacy that something must be true because it has not been, Or can't be, proven false.
If you can't prove that god doesn't exist, That means he must exist.

#2. Argumentum ad misericordia - Appealing to pity.
Why are you so intent on destroying something that makes so many sick children happy!

#3. Argumentum ad nauseum - Fallacy that something is likely to be true the more often it is said.
God exists, How many times do i have to tell you?

#4. Argumentum ad novitatem - Fallacy that something is right because it's new.
Of course Islam is the true religion, Mohammad is the most recent prophet.

#5. Argumentum ad populum - Fallacy that something is correct based on the amount of people who believe it.

Look how many people believe in Jesus, They can't all be wrong.

#6. Bifurcation - Fallacy of presenting a situation as having only two answers.

Evolution is wrong, So that means creationism is right.

#7. Circular Logic - The premise that what you are trying to prove is evidence of it's self.

The bible is the word of god because it says it is, And it can't be wrong, because after all, It is the word of god.

#8. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc - Fallacy of asserting that events occurring simultaneously must be causally related.

With all these natural disasters happening how can you deny that god isn't punishing us?

#9. Plurium interrogationum - Fallacy of demanding a simplistic answer to a complex question.

If god didn't create the universe then explain what did.

#10. Slippery slope fallacy - Fallacy that one event will inevitably lead to harmful consequences.

If we let gays get married it will be the end of family values.

There are many more but these are my favorites and most commonly used logical fallacies in discussions with religious people.

if you have any more with examples please post them in a reply and I'll add them to the list.

Number 11 - Tu Quoque. The fallacy that flaws in one religion can be justified by pointing to flaws in another.

Number 12 - Argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy that insulting your opponent is a substitute for refuting their ideas, eg, you are mad/possessed by Shaitan/too stupid to understand Islam, etc.

I personally agree totally with #5.

Pranam

[Surya Deva]

Namaste,

I agree with all of those arguments. These are all real fallacies of reason.
Hindus do not need to concern themselves with these arguments, because they do not apply to us. Hinduism is not an not anti-rational religion, but a pro rational religion. We accept whatever is reasonable and reject what is not.

Some Hindu arguments towards the atheists would be:

1) If everything is matter, then please explain how you can reduce mind to matter?
2) If evolution is blind random chance, then how do you explain the impeccable order we see in the universe?
3) If there is no god, then where did the the concept of god come from?
4) If 'I' am the "brain" then why am I aware of my own brain?
5) If you believe in the big bang theory then the universe was originally in a state of dormancy, then how did it come out of dormancy by itself?
6) Is there a universe independent of an observer. Prove it.

[qqq]

Namaste,

I agree with all of those arguments. These are all real fallacies of reason.
Hindus do not need to concern themselves with these arguments, because they do not apply to us. Hinduism is not an not anti-rational religion, but a pro rational religion. We accept whatever is reasonable and reject what is not.

Some Hindu arguments towards the atheists would be:

1) If everything is matter, then please explain how you can reduce mind to matter?
2) If evolution is blind random chance, then how do you explain the impeccable order we see in the universe?
3) If there is no god, then where did the the concept of god come from?
4) If 'I' am the "brain" then why am I aware of my own brain?
5) If you believe in the big bang theory then the universe was originally in a state of dormancy, then how did it come out of dormancy by itself?
6) Is there a universe independent of an observer. Prove it.

1. Could you expand on what you mean by 'reduce mind to matter'?

2. It's not blind random chance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

3. There is no Unicorn. Where did the concept of Unicorn come from?

5. Second paragraph on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ban...f_the_Big_Bang

[Alise]

3. There is no Unicorn. Where did the concept of Unicorn come from?

Namaste,

Here's difference between unicorn and God. God is infinite while unicorn is finite. God is beyond everything. Unicorn is not. Everyone knows how unicorn looks like. Where did the concept come from? In these days imaginary creatures are made by mix and matching, doesn't it? And how you know unicorn never existed? :P I mean really world is really really really really old & science discovers new things everyday... But for me personally it's just mix & matching argument...

have a nice day,
~Alice

[Eastern Mind]

1. Could you expand on what you mean by 'reduce mind to matter'?

2. It's not blind random chance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

3. There is no Unicorn. Where did the concept of Unicorn come from?

5. Second paragraph on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ban...f_the_Big_Bang

Vannakkam qqq: Welcome to these forums. Aum Namasivaya.

[Sahasranama]

It's silly to argue with nastikas. They do not accept the vedas as axiomatic truth, there's nothing you can do in terms of logical debate to convince them of the vedas. You either have faith or you don't. The brahma sutras say that logic is insufficient. The vedas are translogical.

[Eastern Mind]

It's silly to argue.

Vannakkam: Could we go this far?

Aum Namasivaya

[Maya3]

It doesn´t matter. No one can prove the existence of God, no one can prove the non existence of God.

Whatever floats your boat.

Maya

[Sahasranama]

Vannakkam: Could we go this far?

Aum Namasivaya

The insufficiency of logic to understand the ultimate reality could be argued, it's one of the axioms accepted in the brahma sutra though that logic is insufficient. There have been very important and intelligent mathematicians in history in the west who tried to logically understand god, but they ended up in mental institutions. Ramanujan though said that "every equation is an expression of the thought of god." Being born in India amongst Hindus, I think he was aware of the limitations of logic, but still regarded mathematics (logical and abract thinking) as one of the divine glories or aspect of God. (yad yad vibhutimat sattvam srimad urjitam eva va, tat tad evavagaccha tvam mama tejo-'msa-sambhavam: know that all beautiful, glorious, and mighty creations spring from but a spark of My splendor. Bhagavad Gita) Logic is useful, but as soon as you reject the vedas, the most important pramana, there's nothing to argue about in regards to nature of brahman, then you are playing a completely different game. You can see now in the west that people love to use vedantic knowledge completely out of context of the shastric pramanas and turn it in an exercise of speculation.

[Harjas Kaur]

"It's silly to argue with nastikas."

Fact!