The Worst Atheist Argument

If I was going to evaluate what made a bad argument it would be some combination of the fallaciousness and popularity of the argument. If it’s extremely egregious and obviously wrong but also very popular, then it becomes a contender for one of the worst, and this one ranks up there.
I’ve seen it in comments on my videos and popular atheist celebrities love to use it. Ricky Gervais famously uses it whenever he gets to exfoliate his atheism in front of an audience, and Richard Dawkins used it in The God Delusion when he said, “We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
In the context of something like a late night tv exchange, it’s extremely effective because it’s succinct, it carries an air of cleverness about it which makes it, at least, appear to be logical.

As a rhetorical instrument, it hits the right notes, but rhetoric without sound logic is just sophistry. That’s why in a classical liberal arts education, they taught dialectic before rhetoric. You had to have a sound understanding of logic before you could apply persuasive speech to your arguments.
But at some point in history, our educational superiors decided we didn’t need to learn logic any more, which is why sophistry has such free reign over our conversations about big ideas. From politics, to advertising, to books like the God Delusion.

From a theist’s perspective, it’s hard to reply to because it’s a targeted shot and it seems clever, but refuting it would require a much less witty exposition of why it’s fallacious. The truth is, it’s a non sequitur to the highest degree and that’s a compliment.

It doesn’t follow that because you only believe in “one less God” than I do that I’m practically an atheist too. It also doesn’t follow that there is no God or that atheism is true or that theism is false.

There’s nothing valid in its content and it doesn’t even seem to assert a conclusion. We’re only left to try to infer what the conclusion is. But because it’s so common and popular, it does seem to require a reply

[albertfralinger]

This was never supposed to be used as an argument. It’s just a simple way to explain ones belief to a theist in a way they can relate to.

[benjaminmorgan]

Simply put the reason this is not a good argument is that this is not an argument. It's not trying to change your mind, it's trying to get you to understand someone else's mind. That you think it's an argument at all is a problem.

[שלומיבדיחי-נז]

I want to give my perspective on this argument as an atheist. First of all I will say that this argument proves nothing, but I don't think that it supposed to prove anything either. If an someone (and I know that some do) use this argument trying to prove that a certain religion is false, then all of the things you said are valid. But I wouldn't use this argument to prove anything, I use it more when people are shocked to hear that I'm an atheist and I want them to realise that it's not that strange. I just want them to realise that I feel the same way about their religion as they feel about other religions. Ultimately it proves nothing, it's more about perspective.

[BARKERPRODUCTION]

Do you really think Ricky Gervais was using that statement as an argument for his position? Or just making an amusing comment on a tv talk show ?

[ajitterbug]

This is not an "argument", and isn't intended to be. It's a witty analogy that aims to demonstrate to theists by listing a convocation of dead gods (who were all once revered but are now reduced to comic book stereotype status by our culture), the absurdity of fervently believing that your flavour is radically different, without any distinguishing reason.

Apparently, you think there's evidence in the Bible to support the idea that your god "is being itself" (whatever that means!). You think it's a "category error" to compare Christianity with the faith of the ancient Greeks because it's possible to setup an empirical test to determine whether Zeus once lived on Mount Olympus (I'd challenge you to do this, by the way.) I'm not sure why you're sure it's a "category error" when there are numerous accounts of God's interactions with man "inside" the universe in the Bible. For an entity that is "being itself" 'he' seems to have a gender, family relationships, human emotions, numerous physical incarnations (notably Jesus, in some mysterious triune form) and so on.

[tomatoysyrup]

I think you missed the point of the argument. The "I just don't believe in one more" is meant to exemplify that we have more in common than people tend to believe. It's meant to help religious people understand that it isn't a big deal to be an atheist. That to us not believing in the Christian God is the equivalent of not believing in Odin or Thor. Furthermore it's meant to help people reflect on their own beliefs. Not to change their mind but to inspire empathy. Its not some "gotcha" like you make it out to be.

[RevolutionDrummer]

"Rhetoric without sound logic is just sophistry." Yes, perfect statement.

[Stinky]

It's not an argument, it's a rhetorical tool used to facilitate a shift in perspective.

[glof]

"Most women are not my mother. Therefore all women are not my mother."

[Markielee]

"Rhetoric without sound logic is just sophistry"

What?!

Stating that atheists disbelieve in one more god than theists do is a factual statement. How on earth can a factual statement not be considered sound logic?!

[thomaspyke]

Its not a argument.. It is a statement intended to make a point. Learn what a argument is.

[JLBorges]

This isn't actually an argument it's a responce to questions about how you could possibly not belive in god. It's an explanation of perspective to Foster at least a superficial understanding. I don't really understand how you could miss that point.

[justinward]

No, I believe in all those other “gods” too, I just call them demons.

-Equally witty and succinct response

[Syrnian]

The way you see all gods except for yours is how I see all gods including yours. It is not an argument it is a comparison.
I believe in one less god is 100% accurate.
Your sophistry is astounding.

[LauFiu]

Mr holdsworth, always wanted to know the origin of your surname. It is honestly befitting.

[alexkrauth]

I remember reading that argument of Dawkins somewhere before, only I had absolutely no clue that it was supposed to be an argument when I read it. I seriously thought it was just him stating that atheists exist and that he's one of them. That's it.

[lovaloo]

It's not really an argument "for atheism". It's only meant to point out the double standard being applied in a way that believers can relate to.

The point is: most people practice the religion of the culture they come from. Stephen Colbert is a Catholic because he was raised in a Catholic household, not because he studied every religion known to man and concluded Catholicism is the true nature of the universe.

[drpancake]

Faith is by definition not a reliable pathway to truth. The implication being that if you can deny all the others because of a lack of faith and faith is all you have to hold your current religion it doesn't matter what story you make up, it can be denied in the same way.
(except for maybe those who directly worshiped the sun, because we can see, feel and measure its worth. they have more of a leg to stand on.)

While I disagree with you, I actually enjoy your content. There is a sincerity to you, and I love your calm approach to arguments.

[cajuncoding]

" when inventing a god, the most important thing is to make it invisible, inaudible and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise, people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." anonymous

[petermeyer]

From 5:00 on the video takes the way, I feared it would all along:
"My god is special, so not believing in him is totally different from not believing in all the others"
In what way is this different from "My car is special, so speed limits apply to all the others but not me"?
The argument this video is about is a valid one, as all gods come with ridiculous claims. The fact that one has grown familiar to the claims of ones own god just reduced their spectacularity, but didnt rise their probability.