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

[Phil]

the same applies to both sides of the argument

Yes, but as Wolfman pointed out, the number of points for or against anything does not contribute to the argument's validity.

I'd say nontheists' arguments, where they may be repeated over and over, only gain more validity as we learn more about the world around us. A believer's arguments on the other hand are as impotent as they've always been.

And perhaps that was the gist of the OP. Why haven't believers come up with anything more valid.

 

[joobz]

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.

Perhaps it would be smart of you to actually read an OP, before making silly statements.

Disclaimer: Out of fear that I may be repeating another established concept already, I apoligize from the start.

 

[joobz]

snip

snip

You missed the point of my OP.

See this post for clarification.

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?

 

[Wolfman]

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).

And I'm sure that a theist would respond that there are new "miracles" and other such events always happening that would constitute "new proof" or "new arguments" for their beliefs.

Come on...ask 20 different atheists/scientists, separately, to list their key arguments to "prove" evolution, to demonstrate its truth. I'll bet you that those lists would come out looking almost identical. Would that, in any manner, shape, or form, serve as an indication or 'proof' that those beliefs were not valid? Of course not.

In fact, to take this a step farther, I'd argue that the OP is completely wrong. That the weakness of "religion" is not the fact that they always use the same arguments, but that, in fact, they use too many different arguments, many of which are in direct opposition to each other. Try putting an animist, a Hindu, a Buddhist, and a Muslim together to come up with a unified system of arguments for their belief in some kind of god...it'd be virtually impossible.

There are far, far, far more arguments used by various theists to justify their beliefs, than there would be arguments used to justify evolution, or most other scientific theories.

 

[joobz]

In fact, to take this a step farther, I'd argue that the OP is completely wrong. That the weakness of "religion" is ...

To claim the OP is wrong, you must first READ the OP.
It has nothing at all to do with claiming religion is right or wrong.

 

[uruk]

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.

And with all the resultant detriment those things offer to mankind, you'd figure that we would be smarter than our ancestors and find a better way. But....

 

[El_Spectre]

And with all the resultant detriment those things offer to mankind, you'd figure that we would be smarter than our ancestors and find a better way. But....

Well, we're getting better, but there is still competition. At some point, there's not enough food / metal / energy / ResourceX to go around. Then we have conflict over them.

It sounds nice to say peace is easy, but it is not. Tell a parent that their kid must starve in the name of peace, instead of taking food from someone else. Doesn't happen very often.

 

[drkitten]

And I'm sure that a theist would respond that there are new "miracles" and other such events always happening that would constitute "new proof" or "new arguments" for their beliefs.

Actually, relatively few of the honest ones would. It's generally accepted among theologians that the age of flashy miracles is over (for whatever reason), and that there's little "new" proof of the existence of God that wasn't available fifty or a hundred years ago.

Come on...ask 20 different atheists/scientists, separately, to list their key arguments to "prove" evolution, to demonstrate its truth. I'll bet you that those lists would come out looking almost identical. Would that, in any manner, shape, or form, serve as an indication or 'proof' that those beliefs were not valid? Of course not.

No, of course not. But on the other hand, one of the things that would be strong evidence that the beliefs were valid is how much the lists would have changed over, say, a fifty year period -- reflecting the new evidence that has been amassed since then.

 

[plumjam]

I agree with Wolfman (mostly) on this one.

I would add that genuine religion/spirituality is based on experience, not argument.

Atheists are in a bit of a difficult spot in this regard. This is because you can't have an experience of God not existing, in a way that would preclude the possibility of his existence.
Therefore, atheists are forced to rely on argument, rather than experience. Theists don't need to rely on argument, they only need experience.
In this sense I'd say that theists are prima facie in a stronger position. Plus, given their reliance on experience, I'd even say that theists are in a more scientific position.

 

[joobz]

I agree with Wolfman (mostly) on this one.

I would add that genuine religion/spirituality is based on experience, not argument.

Atheists are in a bit of a difficult spot in this regard. This is because you can't have an experience of God not existing, in a way that would preclude the possibility of his existence.
Therefore, atheists are forced to rely on argument, rather than experience. Theists don't need to rely on argument, they only need experience.
In this sense I'd say that theists are prima facie in a stronger position. Plus, given their reliance on experience, I'd even say that theists are in a more scientific position.. as the term is generally used.

no

 

[plumjam]

no

this is probably the atheist argument that has been repeated to me most on this forum

 

[cyborg]

3.) we aren't any smarter than people 200-10,000 years ago.

Should we really expect "smarter information" to dominate simply because it is smarter? It would seem that "dumber information" has its advantages too.

 

[Phil]

. . . . In this sense I'd say that theists are prima facie in a stronger position. Plus, given their reliance on experience, I'd even say that theists are in a more scientific position.

I'd say you are incorrect on both points. Unless you're using some fanciful measure of strength that is only apparent to you.

 

[KingMerv00]

this is probably the atheist argument that has been repeated to me most on this forum

We get sick of repeating ourselves. So I agree with "no".

 

[joobz]

I would add that genuine religion/spirituality is based on experience, not argument.[snip the rest of argument, because it relies on this faulty premise]

This makes no sense.
"religion is real" becuase of "experience" IS an argument.

 

[pannarrans]

It's quite simple really, they're not logical arguments but emotional ones. They're asked to trigger an emotional response, a revelation, an opening of the eyes or heart, a seeing the light etc..

Yes, the answers are adressed already, rebutted, debated, flogged to death and picked to the bone. It doesn't matter if they're answered by logic because they're meaned to be answered by logic.

Why repeatedly, heck, ask the same person what's 2+2 repeatedly over time and you will eventually get an emotional response (especially if it is asked with an air of I-know-more-than-you and you-don't-understand).

It's a trap and a succesfull one at that. Those asking the questions are often prior victims of that trap.

 

[uruk]

Well, we're getting better, but there is still competition. At some point, there's not enough food / metal / energy / ResourceX to go around. Then we have conflict over them.

I wont deny there have been improvements in some areas in some parts of the world because of the knowledge we've aquired. We are pretty clever creatures after all with things like pyramids and medicine and technology.

Usually things like poverty and food shoratges are sometimes political and sociological issues and not necessarily issues of money and farmable land. (Then there is the possibility of soylent green after all )
And there is a whole solar system of resources available if we can figure a way of making it practical.

[/quote]It sounds nice to say peace is easy, but it is not. Tell a parent that their kid must starve in the name of peace, instead of taking food from someone else. Doesn't happen very often.[/QUOTE]

Never said it would be easy. Only that if we were actualy smarter than our ancestors things might be better than it is now.

 

[tsg]

There are far, far, far more arguments used by various theists to justify their beliefs, than there would be arguments used to justify evolution, or most other scientific theories.

The main difference being that the religious arguments have been refuted repeatedly.

 

[plumjam]

This makes no sense.
"religion is real" becuase of "experience" IS an argument.

No. The validity of religion does not rely on it being stated in any proposition or argument. Religion can be valid due to experience, prior to, or independent of that being stated in words.

The validity and truthfulness of me just having drunk a cup of tea is intact and secure before I state it in words. It's validity and truthfulness does not rely on it being stated in words.
This is because it is experiential.

Therefore theists can be correct without saying anything; without having to engage in argument at all.

Atheists could be correct without saying anything too. But because experience is of no use to them, they have to use argument as their 'raw material'.

 

[tsg]

No. The validity of religion does not rely on it being stated in any proposition or argument. Religion can be valid due to experience, prior to, or independent of that being stated in words.

The validity and truthfulness of me just having drunk a cup of tea is intact and secure before I state it in words. It's validity and truthfulness does not rely on it being stated in words.
This is because it is experiential.

Therefore theists can be correct without saying anything; without having to engage in argument at all.

Atheists could be correct without saying anything too. But because experience is of no use to them, they have to use argument as their 'raw material'.

Case in point.