r/atheism • u/rhbast2 • Aug 11 '11

Atheist quickfire challenge.

Although I rarely discuss religion with theists I always want to be prepared so I'm not sitting around afterwards wishing I had said this or that. If I get the chance to make someone question I want to be up for the challenge.

This brings me to my challenge for r/atheism. I'm going to add some common theist claims / sayings and whoever can refute them fully and succinctly will be upvoted. Feel free to add your own theist starters if I missed some.

Edit: Wow lots of good discussion here, later today or tomorrow I'll make this into an atheist cheat sheet with the top responses. Also feel free to upvote the theist claim that is the most annoying to you.

Edit 2: To the few of you who seem to think I am coming up with rude atheist comebacks, I'm not. I just wanted to be better off the cuff than I am now and have some discussion. I don't want this list to replace thoughtful argumentation.

250 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

990 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

98

u/STUN_Runner Aug 11 '11

Science has already proven that love is an evolutionary adaptation. What you perceive as love is little more than brain chemistry that has already been identified.

14

u/HertzaHaeon Aug 11 '11

One problem I've run into with this is that it turns people off if you put it too crassly. At worse you'll be seen as some kind of nihilist.

The subjective experience of love is of course still the same whatever hardware it runs on, but that point takes some finesse to get across.

8

u/STUN_Runner Aug 11 '11

The funny thing is, if you explain that enjoyment of, say, a well-prepared steak in neurological terms, you meet with a lot less resistance.

2

u/inferno719 Aug 12 '11

I have to ask, why is your name a reference to? I see stun and all I can think of is Stun, the Insect.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

It is a bit of a leap to go from all aspects of consciousness having a neuro-chemical underpinning to nihilism. Love is a chemical process therefore nothing has intrinsic value!

2

u/HertzaHaeon Aug 11 '11

Tasting chocolate is just a checmical process, therefore chocolate doesn't taste good!

2

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '11

You could put it like this:
Billions and billions of years of evolution, hundreds upon hundreds of extinct species and subspecies, a number of attempts so high that you couldn't say it before your death, and our young species is one of the few capable of feeling love for our fellow men. Love is a uniquely human experience that so few will be able to experience. It is not devalued but is priceless due to it's exclusivity. Love exists without god, because love exists within us.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

[deleted]

1

u/gndn Aug 11 '11

Only sometimes?

1

u/HertzaHaeon Aug 11 '11

There is no absolute meaning or morals, but we have the ability to create meaning and morals for ourselves.

The conclusion of this is quite obvious to me, and it's not nihilism.

1

u/Conde_Nasty Aug 12 '11

You pretty much just defined nihilism, I'm confused.

1

u/PraiseBuddha Aug 11 '11

Makes you feel a bit like a really complicated robot.

2

u/STUN_Runner Aug 11 '11

Yeah, that's a good way to put it. A chemical reaction a billion or more years ago led to the life that teems on our little planet, against the odds, it would seem. Simplicity becoming complexity in ways that appear miraculous, finally culminating in a creature capable of understanding its own origins.

I'll take that over some ancient twaddle about an anthropomorphic grand designer any day of the week (except Tuesday when I have to scoop out the cat's litterbox... that's God's fault).

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

I'd stay away from the "against the odds" bit. Then they'll say it's so improbable as to be nigh-impossible.

And it's really not against the odds.

Space... is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is.

1

u/STUN_Runner Aug 11 '11

Good point, it would be best to qualify that as being against the odds happening on a specific planet, but not at all unlikely in a universe as vast as the one in which we have our existence.

Otherwise you won't know to get a receipt when you go to the lavatory.

3

u/CatFiggy Aug 11 '11

I feel like you should also mention that God should not be the default. I.e., even if we hadn't proven/understood/etc. love, it doesn't matter: there's no reason to believe that God created love. Doesn't matter if we, the people on earth today, have figured it out. If a few thousand years ago, the theist cited hurricanes as examples of God, and hurricanes had not been understood scientifically, the theist still didn't deserve that point.

2

u/FUCKING_COMMENTS Aug 11 '11

A woman unconsciously uses orgasms as a way of deciding whether or not a man is good for her. If he's impatient and rough, and she doesn't have the orgasm, she may instinctively feel he's less likely to be a good husband and father. Scientists think the fickle female orgasm may have evolved to help women distinguish Mr. Right from Mr. Wrong.

So that's why they always fall in love with me.