All rational debate about religion whittles down to one question: does god exist? The burden of proof lies with the party making the positive claim. So, who is making the positive claim? Is it the side that says there is a god or the side that says there is none? From my perspective, there are no such things as "self-evident" truths, so if something exists, it must be backed up by scientific observation. Now, the debate should end there, pending a response that actually means something from the other side. To those who believe in god, the argument starts from the point of god existing, so the debate has a much different flow to it. To believers, the existence of god is self-evident, which is a circular argument, a logical fallacy necessary to uphold the notion that a claim of no god is the logical leap.
What is a self-evident truth, anyhow? By definition, it is something that is understood without necessity of proof. I think we can say, then, that very few philosophical assertions are self-evident.
This self-evident nonsense feeds into the idea that being agnostic is somehow more logical than being hard atheist. Granted, agnosticism is far more logical than believing, but there is something that irks me about it. To put it bluntly, there would be no agnostics if the silly idea of god hadn't been made up in the first place. Now, I do realize the circular overtones of that statement, so let me put it another way. If an agnostic says there could be a god, then they also have to define what kind of god it is. Otherwise this makes the argument no better than saying that there could be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is still substantiating a notion that has no evidence. It is easier, simpler and cleaner to note that there is no evidence for god and thus no reason to believe that he exists.
A common argument that a believer usually beings with is the following: is a video game character aware of its programmer? Is a picture aware of its taker? Et cetera... The answer is always no, because none of the things they cite have consciences. The parallels are worse than the metaphors you see in the annual awards for terrible writing. As if obfuscating the argument by suggesting we're in The Matrix makes it more coherent.
Here's one argument that will draw a laugh: so-and-so used to be a prominent atheist and made all the pro-atheist arguments, but they have since converted and now denounce them. The counter to this argument is not in understanding its intention (which is to shake your confidence in your stance) but in understanding its weakness. Indeed, unless you can identify that so-called prominent atheist amongst your own influences (and also confirm the truth that they have converted), then no confidence should be lost. Furthermore, the use of a single convert as sway is desperation. It is not only a logical fallacy, but a losing proposition if taken seriously to begin with. What is one convert against the rapidly growing population that considers themselves as non-believers? Try to appeal to population and you'll find your ground falling away beneath you.
Alas, just because millions of people are doing it doesn't mean it is the right thing. Luckily, we have independently verifiable logic on our side.
17 nibbles: