why are the same religious arguments made over and over again?

joobz

Tergiversator
joobz
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
17,998
Disclaimer: Out of fear that I may be repeating another established concept already, I apoligize from the start.

-------
Why are the same arguments made again and again?
"You need religion for morality"
"What if you're wrong?"
"Couldn't have just happened"
plus many others.

All of these have been debated and addressed. There exists standard replies, counters to these arguments, which are all readily available upon a quick google search. Yet, it seems that the same argument will come up again by someone else with the same "Ah ha! I've proved religion and god. I win," attitude. And almost always, they completely ignore or pretend to ignore that these rebutals exist.

It isn't that these people are stupid. We may call them lazy for not looking into the sources more. But we do not know how much work they have to put into such endeavors, so I do not like to make that claim either.

My thought is, perhaps it stems from some built-in assumption that we are original beings. That if we have an idea, it is highly unlikely that anyone else had ever had that same idea before. If it is new to the person, that means it is reflexively new to the world.

Yes, it is obvious that such a view is easily proven wrong. Look at the common conflicts that exist in stories people right. But it doesn't change the fact that this attitude exists. You can see it with each generation's attitudes toward music. That every generation acts as though they invented or improved sex (in some way or another). That we repeat the mistakes made in history.

It takes a good couple of cold realizations in a person's life to come to understand that 1.) your generation didn't make "Better" music than the last and 2.)your parents had lots of freaky sex and 3.) we aren't any smarter than people 200-10,000 years ago.

I'm just wondering if there is a way to apply this principle in dealing with the repeated arguments. Or is it something that there is no solution.
 
joobz said:
My thought is, perhaps it stems from some built-in assumption that we are original beings. That if we have an idea, it is highly unlikely that anyone else had ever had that same idea before. If it is new to the person, that means it is reflexively new to the world.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty much it right there. Everyone thinks they're original in some way when it's more likely that millions of people have had the exact same thoughts.

joobz said:
...your parents had lots of freaky sex...
Click to expand...

Ugh. Don't remind me.
 
joobz said:
lots of stuff.
Click to expand...
I honestly think that there is no solution. If you think about it, atheist arguments aren't new either, yet we continue to propose them.

I really do think there is an emotional element to belief that defies logic. When we make our logical arguments, people aren't convinced because we haven't dealt with the emotional portion of their belief. This is why we find ourselves in this endless cycle of argument that can never be resolved.

I also agree that as each new generation discovers the available information, it is new to them and seems very profound. People tend to think that others have not heard this information and had the opportunity to experience its profundity.
 
Last edited:
Here's a question, using Christianity as an example: how many new ideas have been generated by Christianity about Christianity over the last 1000 years? How many possible answers can you get based on one book that is 2000+ years old?

When you keep going back to the same source, repetition is inevitable.
 
I agree. But I think Apology raises a valid point. The atheist arguments are equally repetitious. But are they the same kind of repitition?

In other words, the ball is in who's court? Which argument is left un-addressed? Are there any atheist arguments that have a solid rebuttal that hasn't been addressed?
 
Well, religion seems built on insistence and repetition (look at how many people go in for a refresher course every sunday), so its hardly surprising that those same tools get used in the defense of faith. For lack of evidence, that's all they've got.

I would disagree with "3.) we aren't any smarter than people 200-10,000 years ago." tho. We certainly are, and the people of the future will be smarter than us. The accumulated store of knowledge of humanity grows by the day.

To paraphrase Sagan, we invented libraries (and now the internet) when our brains couldn't hold what we need to survive. Barring major disaster, we should keep improving.

Also, disasters happen... look at the loss of the library of Alexandria (and its associated culture of learning).... western society's growth took a massive hit when it burned...
 
I think it is a case of " a child with a new toy".
I'm guilty of it also. Whenever I debate around here I always make a new discover (to me) of some sort. It is cool to think that you arrived at a new idea all by yourself.
To some it can be disappointing to find out that it's nothing new.
Although I think it's kinda cool when you find out that, completely by yourself, you discovered something that was figured out by others who are vastly smarter than you. It means that your coming along intellectually wise.
 
JoeEllison said:
Here's a question, using Christianity as an example: how many new ideas have been generated by Christianity about Christianity over the last 1000 years? How many possible answers can you get based on one book that is 2000+ years old?

When you keep going back to the same source, repetition is inevitable.
Click to expand...

Well, most of the common concepts of Hell (in christianity) were more or less cribbed from Dante, by an overzealous cleric 700 years ago...

And don't even get me started on the holy grail :)
 
Last edited:
El_Spectre said:
Well, religion seems built on insistence and repetition (look at how many people go in for a refresher course every sunday), so its hardly surprising that those same tools get used in the defense of faith. For lack of evidence, that's all they've got.
Click to expand...
But we assume originality in almost everything. Perhaps it's a needed psychological self-delusion.

El_Spectre said:
I would disagree with "3.) we aren't any smarter than people 200-10,000 years ago." tho. We certainly are, and the people of the future will be smarter than us. The accumulated store of knowledge of humanity grows by the day.

To paraphrase Sagan, we invented libraries (and now the internet) when our brains couldn't hold what we need to survive. Barring major disaster, we should keep improving.

Also, disasters happen... look at the loss of the library of Alexandria (and its associated culture of learning).... western society's growth took a massive hit when it burned...
Click to expand...
Oh, I agree fully that we "know" more as a society. But that's not the same thing as saying we are smarter.
 
El_Spectre said:
I would disagree with "3.) we aren't any smarter than people 200-10,000 years ago." tho. We certainly are, and the people of the future will be smarter than us. The accumulated store of knowledge of humanity grows by the day.
Click to expand...
Well techincally smarts and book knowledge are two different things. Knowing something is one thing. Figuring out what to do with that knowledge is something else.

We are certainly more knowledgeable than our ancestors. But smarter? We still got war, poverty, bigotry, etc.,etc.
 
El_Spectre said:
I would disagree with "3.) we aren't any smarter than people 200-10,000 years ago." tho. We certainly are, and the people of the future will be smarter than us. The accumulated store of knowledge of humanity grows by the day.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on what you mean by "smarter". We are certainly more intelligent in that we have accumulated a great deal more information, but I don't know that we are any cleverer than those of the past. Even thousands of years ago our ancestors achieved some pretty staggeringly clever things. We're still using the same brain that figured out how to make a Clovis point.
 
Not to be too pedantic here...but how many atheists can introduce new, novel arguments for their beliefs (or lack thereof)? I might as well ask why those who argue in favor of evolution always seem to rely on the same old arguments, the same tired old proof?

Simple. Because for any given belief, there will be a finite (and usually fairly limited) range of explanations/justifications for that belief. In fact, I'd feel fairly safe in arguing that theists have more different, unique arguments to "defend" their beliefs than evolutionists would have to defend theirs.

The number of "different" or "unique" arguments that are used to defend a belief have nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of that belief; and the repeated use of certain arguments certainly in no way invalidates or decreases the validity of that belief.

This is a weak, pointless argument that lends little or nothing to the debate over the validity (or lack thereof) of religious beliefs. I'm an atheist myself, and certainly don't agree with their beliefs; but there are plenty of arguments that are far, far better to logically and rationally demonstrate their errors.

By the way -- I hope that people appreciate the irony in the fact that the OP is, itself, an argument that has been used many times previously by atheists.
 
In a sense, a religious argument cannot be new, since it could not be considered as part of the canon. Unless the supreme deity of whatever religion comes down to make a new pronouncement, pretty much all a religious proponent can do is to overanalyze the same source texts repeatedly.

To rebut Wolfman's evolution argument briefly, as new evidence is uncovered, new arguments can be made. Darwin's theory sounded interesting when first proposed, but when Mendel's work was (re)discovered, a stronger argument could be made for its veracity. I don't think we have discovered everything there is to know about evolution yet (leaving abiogensis out of the question for the time being).
 
uruk said:
Well techincally smarts and book knowledge are two different things. Knowing something is one thing. Figuring out what to do with that knowledge is something else.

We are certainly more knowledgeable than our ancestors. But smarter? We still got war, poverty, bigotry, etc.,etc.
Click to expand...

Sure. War is probably inevitable in any system of limited resources (such as our planet, and indeed universe). In any competitive society, you will have some people that are poorer than others. Again, competition creates ingroups/outgroups, and prejudices and bigotry result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom