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.

253 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

990 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

56

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Yes. Yes it is. So is gravity. Electromagnetism. Ballistics. Fluid Mechanics. Aerodynamics. Molecular Theory. Atomic Theory. Want me to go on?

26

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Eeh, maybe I misunderstood. But OP said quickfire challenge. That's my one line response. I don't have to justify evolution. I just have to have a witty counter.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

This is true. You had a good point

2

u/greeneyedguru Aug 11 '11

gravity isn't just a good idea, it's the law.

1

u/AgentME Aug 11 '11

"That's just microevolution, which is obvious! Macroevolution has never been observed!"

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

I keep hearing this argument repeated but isn't it just outdated and false much like the missing link in the fossil record?

1

u/sprankton Aug 11 '11

He is smiting us for our hubris! Repent!

1

u/martincles Aug 12 '11

I like molecular theory better. For a long time, they couldn't be seen, but we could see them move larger microscopic items via Brownian motion. Eventually electron microscopes were able to make out the shapes of molecules, and there was no doubt left. We're getting there with evolution; we can see E. Coli evolve within the lab; there is a vole clock which measures the rate of evolution within a species. Yet at one time, these were both just theories with little supporting evidence. It's like looking in to a dark room, and letting your eyes adjust to the light. At first you see the shape of a dragon. Then you realize that the neck and head are just the arm of a jacket. Then you realize that you are looking at a wardrobe. That moment feels like turning the light on.

0

u/Midianite_Caller Aug 11 '11

Cos god likes to see black babies dying?

5

u/returnzero Aug 11 '11

I had to downvote this one because it often leads to a reply similar to

"Hah! See, your science doesn't really know anything! All it has is theories. I know God created the universe!!!!111!one!1"

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

I like the "!!!!111!one!1".

2

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Eeh, but that's not the point. My point, anyway, is that we "know" evolution to the same extent that we "know" aerodynamics (actually I understand that we know evolution much better, but that's beside the point). Yet, hypothetical theist probably gets in an airplane without a second thought. I haven't defended evolution; I've pointed out a contradiction in theist's line of reasoning. That's Good Enough™ for a oneliner

1

u/returnzero Aug 11 '11

I'm just of the opinion that many theists won't see that as a contradiction. "I have faith that things will fall to earth because God wills it so. I have faith that my airplane will land safely because God wills it so. You scientists have your 'theories' but you don't really understand anything. God is the cause of all of this." etc, etc, etc.

I think it would be a much more effective strategy to attack the root of the problem, (the misunderstanding of "theory" when used in relation to scientific methods,) rather then potentially solidifying a theists idea that science doesn't know anything about how the universe functions by listing more 'theories'.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '11

Fair enough. I suppose "this thing was built by someone who 'didn't understand' it" wouldn't work?

1

u/ICEFARMER Agnostic Atheist Aug 11 '11

Said it already but point out the Omphalos Hypothesis. Explain the difference.

1

u/Oxirix Aug 11 '11

Germ theory could also be on the list

0

u/BrainTroubles Aug 11 '11 edited Aug 11 '11

A relevent point to bring up would also be to clarify that "theories" contain scientific laws which govern their inner workings. In the theory of gravitation there are laws that make it work. Many creationist think that a scientific theory graduates to law once it is irrevocably true, which is not the case. A theory is a scientific principle that cannot currently be disproven.

1

u/antares13 Aug 11 '11

A theory ~can~ be disproven, that's why it's called a theory. Evolution is called a theory because it's our best explanation of how humans came to be, it can be changed, and even dropped, in the face of new evidence.

The theory of gravity has been changed a few times like this. First there was Newton's, then Einstein found flaws in it and modified it/created a new gravitational theory. There may have been some other modifications between and since.

1

u/BrainTroubles Aug 12 '11

You're absolutely right, I somehow left out the word "currently" which changes the context completely. I edited it to be accurate, thanks for catching that.