Belasco

On a local board Muslims and Christians are arguing and one of the other atheists made the comment about how much we enjoy watching them go at it because it saves us the trouble. One guy responded with this:

I can't think of a worse argument I've ever heard in support of his claim. "Because the Bible says so" is close, but still second.

I responded with the fact that the Invisible Pink Unicorn of Death doesn't have any followers and that we better watch out. How else would you guys respond?

Writer@Large

I'd tell him that it's good news for Santa Claus. With all the adults out there who don't believe he exists, his existence must be certain!

--W@L

Selsaral

I'd completely give up. How can you expect to have a rational conversation with someone who makes an argument like that? Assuming they weren't joking, that shows a complete inability to think in even the most basic way.

diana

I've heard some form of that one a few times. I never quite know what to say. The only thing that routinely strikes me dumb is the condition of having so many answers to a stupid comment that I am temporarily at a loss of which to choose.

The comment usually comes as an assumption within Webster's definition of "atheism." To wit: one who denies the existence of God. The implication is that denial of something connotes a knowledge of that thing, so an atheist must know there is a God in order to deny it.

I try to avoid this idiocy by self-identifying as an infidel.

W@L's answer is succinct, methinks.

d

malookiemaloo

If God did not exist, why do we have the word in our language?

Psycho Economist

Certainly the idea exists, but that doesn't mean the character is real.



Or is James Bond sabbotaging the North Korean nuclear program while we speak; his exploits to be depicted on film sometime in the summer of 2005?

malookiemaloo

OK James Bond is made up fiction but I just wondered, if God did not exist, what would possess people say He does, let alone worship Him.

Albert Cipriani

Malook,
Thanks for the comic relief. You said:
The operative phrase there is, “I can’t think.” You literally can’t.

That’s what you momentarily experienced. That’s what an argument like his does to our circuitry. Brains are hard-wired for pattern recognition, and such statements, like radar-jamming chaff, blinds it.

Brain scientists have actually discovered a transient brain wave associated with this phenomenon, a kind of nonsense recognition bleep. The brain of both the person who says and the person who hears the nonsense experiences the brain bleep.

Armed with this knowledge, I look forward to a day when all people will always be hooked up to plasma screens that by law would hang from our necks, as the “Eat at Joe’s” placards did during the Great Depression. Then everyone would have visual confirmation for all the bullshit that we know -- but presently can’t confirm -- we’re swimming through.

And who knows, such graphic displays of people’s obscene mental non-processes just might shame them into being more honest… Nah! They’d probably just dim their screens and pass another law that made us all wear sunglasses. – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic 2/13/03
Albert's Rants

Psycho Economist

This is a line of thought that's rebutted by several different logical, empirical and non-rigorous arguments... all of which have been covered in the EoG forum at one time or another... none of which are particularly relevant to this thread.

Philosoft

Because we have the ability to associate imaginary things with words.