Justify the belief that gods do not exist.

[wiploc]

Some people believe that gods do not exist. (One can call this position "atheism" or "strong atheism" or "anti-theist perversion," anything you want. But we aren't going to argue terminology in this thread. Clarity is good, so you can explain what you personally mean by "atheist," but you shouldn't suggest that other usages are inferior.)

This thread is to make a list of arguments, of reasons to believe that theism is false.

And we can discuss the soundness of those arguments.

I'll start:

1. The Parable of the Pawnbroker.
(I'll just post titles here, so as not to take too much space at the top of each thread.)

2. Presumptive Falsity of Outrageous Claims.



Feel free to add to this list.

[Randall]

I believe that if a "God" existed and truly cared about "His" creations, then "He" would just show himself to all the non-believers and end the debate.
If this is supposed to be a test...it's a rather pathetic one. Allowing children to suffer rapes and beatings without intervention? What kind of "Father" would allow that??
God's actions aren't "mysterious"...they're non-existent. He supposedly let his only son be beaten to a pulp and then nailed to a tree...I can definitely do without THAT kind of love.
The true fallacy here, is believing that anyone died for OUR sins. What sin?? The quest for knowledge?? The arrogance of wanting to learn more than what we already know?
I understand why religions would rather keep their flocks in the dark, because when confronted with the obvious absurdities that they peddle...well, it's tantamount to horse manure.

[spiritualrevolution]

Science has proven that humans are neither moral nor immoral "by nature." They are blank slates, upon which society writes the moral and ethical codes.

Suppose this were true.

Now suppose you ask, "Why don't you steal" to three people.

Person 1. "I don't steal because it's wrong. That's what I was taught."

Person 2 "I don't steal because it's wrong. That's what I was taught and I was raised in the Christian faith, and it says in the bible that it's wrong."

Person 3. "I was told not to steal, but after thinking carefully about it, I don't normally steal because I have weighed the consequences of stealing, and the cons usually outweigh the pros, but if given a proper opportunity I will steal.

Who here is the moral person? To me, even if person 3 seems like the asshole, at least this individual gave the question proper thought. Maybe person 3 only steals from the rich and gives to the poor. Does that make him/her more moral? What if person 3 only steals from non-friends, i.e. never from anyone personally close to them. Does that make him/her less moral?

I think the question we should be asking is, why do you have so and so rule, or why you have that so and so rule, in your belief system, and given so and so rule, why do you "personally" abide by it?

As if non-theists get their moral guidelines from....what? Where DID you get your idea of what right and wrong is?

? Non-theists get their moral guidelines the same way as theists.

1. They are told some moral guidelines or see other individuals behave according to some moral guidelines. Then they choose whether or not to accept the guidelines they have encountered.

2. They do not know the moral guidelines at first, and commit some actions. The actions have consequences. Now they decide what guideline they should follow.

Regardless, none of this justifies or denies existence of "god". More importantly, it seems to be the case to me that "god"'s existence is meaningless. [/i]

[dianaiad]

Science has proven that humans are neither moral nor immoral "by nature." They are blank slates, upon which society writes the moral and ethical codes.

Rubbish. "Philosophers and psychologists have long believed that babies are born "blank slates," and that it is the role of parents and society to teach babies the difference between right and wrong; good and bad; mean and nice ... But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one."
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/ba ... als-ac360/
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013 ... moral-life
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Babies-Origi ... 0307886840

Has science also proven that babies learn very fast, and apply those things their parents might approve of very, very quickly indeed?

Sure.

but children who are deprived of socialization ('feral' children) are not able to function in human society well, if at all, and they do not form their own set of moral values, except 'that which doesn't scare me witless and that which will keep me from being harmed."

But tell me....if, as you seem to be claiming, that all children have their morals...or some sense of morality...hardwired, or is innate, then why are you claiming that theists don't have one?

Because in sum, that is what you are claiming.

...................and that does not, in any way, justify the belief that gods do not exist.

[dianaiad]

Science has proven that humans are neither moral nor immoral "by nature." They are blank slates, upon which society writes the moral and ethical codes.

What you state here is actually only partly true. Also if you accept this as having been proven, then clearly God did not "write morality onto the hearts of men" which many Christians claim he did.

"Many Christians' does not equal 'every theist ever born.' It doesn't even equal the set of all Christians. In fact, you are attributing, to that set of 'many Christians' a position YOU are holding; that morality is innate, and religion is not required. The only difference that I can see between you and those 'many Christians' is that you have absolutely no explanation as to why such innate morality would exist, and more to the point, why only atheists would have it.

After all, it seems to be your claim that theists don't have that innate morality, since they claim to require religion in order to set the standards by which to judge their morality.

I wonder if you and see the truly insane and circular illogic being used here?

I mean, really;

Given the premise that there is no God,

How can you possibly argue that people who turn to religion for their moral standards lack this innate morality that you claim for those who don't get their moral standards from religious sources? If there is no deity, then either we all have that innate moral center, or none of us do. It seems rather silly to argue that people who turn to religion for their standards are doing so because they LACK such a thing. After all, how could you miss something you never had and don't want? Why would you look for it?

No, this is a really contradictory argument: if anything (should there be no deity) the mass turning to religion that we have seen over humanity's history is an indication that ALL of us have, or know that we need, a set of moral standards to live by...either that, or none of us do.

Given the fate of those people who were not socialized, and who were isolated from human contact when children, I don't think you have the evidence to show that we are hardwired for morality.

Complete innocence? Sure. I'll go with that, but for 'goodness,' or 'morality?'

Not so much, no.

To begin with the part I disagree with is the claim that "society writes the moral and ethical codes" onto the blank slates of children. This is certainly partially true and may be more true in some cases than others. Everyone isn't a mindless robot who just accepts whatever society or their parents and teachers tell them (some people obviously are though).

But many people do indeed think for themselves and decide for themselves their own moral values. Moral values that may not even be remotely close to those of the society, parents, or teachers that they may have had.

I will agree with science that we are Great Apes. And that we do much of our learning via "Monkey See, Monkey Do". Young Children will often attempt to emulate their parents behaviors. In fact, even as we grow older when we see someone else do something that we think is clever, the very first thing we think of is "Hey I'm going to start doing it that way too!"

It's perfectly natural to learn from examples that we see before our very eyes.

But still, I think that when it come to moral values individuals are still individuals who make up their own minds in many case. Just because children are born as a "blank slate" doesn't mean that society "Writes their morality out for them". On the contrary society actually gives them a vast spectrum of morality to choose from. Picking and choosing precisely what the individual accepts as being moral is ultimately the decision of the individual.

And as I have already said, everyone is not the same. Some people are clearly better at thinking for themselves than others. There certainly are those people who go through life proclaiming that they believe what they believe either because their mommy or daddy "Says it's true", or maybe because they point to a Bible or Qur'an and claim "This book says it's true so I believe it".

Clearly there are people who do that and are apparently totally incapable of thinking for themselves.

So everyone is not the same. In fact, people who are capable of thinking for themselves may not even be able to communicate with those people who cannot think for themselves, because the latter people have no understanding of cerebral sovereignty.

Yes, as we grow and learn to think and make decisions, we can, and do, take into account everything we learn from our cradles.

But...DI...we all do it in the context of the things we've learned. Yes, young American teenagers rebel, decide which standards they will keep and which they will abandon; whether the standards they were taught are better or worse than the standards they find elsewhere.

However, a young American teenager will do his rebelling in English. He isn't going to make anything up; he's going to pick and choose among the ideas he is exposed to.

That feral child from Germany isn't going to waltz into New Orleans and order beignets in French.

You owe your present ability to think and make choices to the things you were taught, by other humans, as a child. Whether or not you agree with those things, it is those things upon which you base your present moral positions.

Especially you, DI, since (at least on this forum) your entire philosophical stand is based on hating someone else's beliefs and ideas. Personally, I think that's a waste of valuable time for both you and those to whom you speak.

You really don't need to tell everybody else how stupid and pathetic they are; indeed, that tends to be counterproductive. You don't need to tell people how wrong and evil their beliefs are; first, you probably get their beliefs wrong in the first place, and people aren't going to change their beliefs because someone is attacking a belief they don't hold.

Exactly what do you have to replace Christianity? What set of moral and ethical standards is better than the ones Christians use, and what makes it better? Why would any of us be better off joining you in your diatribe of hatred than just being Christian, and helping our neighbors as we can?

And how does any of this justify the belief that gods do not exist?

'cause, honestly, I don't see it.

[wiploc]

But tell me....if, as you seem to be claiming, that all children have their morals...or some sense of morality...hardwired, or is innate, then why are you claiming that theists don't have one?

William Lane Craig claims that he doesn't know of any reason not to rape women, aside from the fact that his god prohibits it.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he's lying, as opposed to being a sociopath. Still, it is the theists, many of them, who claim that they have no morality other than what they get from their religion.

That's not our claim. Theists promote the belief that they are moral idiots, in the attempt to get us to follow their morality. It's strange. It's like someone urging you to enroll in his driving school because he totals every car he drives.

Because in sum, that is what you are claiming.

I doubt it. I think theists, even those who claim otherwise, have the same moral capacities as atheists. They just like to claim they got them magically, from god, and wouldn't have them otherwise.

[dianaiad]

But tell me....if, as you seem to be claiming, that all children have their morals...or some sense of morality...hardwired, or is innate, then why are you claiming that theists don't have one?

William Lane Craig claims that he doesn't know of any reason not to rape women, aside from the fact that his god prohibits it.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he's lying, as opposed to being a sociopath. Still, it is the theists, many of them, who claim that they have no morality other than what they get from their religion.

That's not our claim. Theists promote the belief that they are moral idiots, in the attempt to get us to follow their morality. It's strange. It's like someone urging you to enroll in his driving school because he totals every car he drives.

Because in sum, that is what you are claiming.

I doubt it. I think theists, even those who claim otherwise, have the same moral capacities as atheists. They just like to claim they got them magically, from god, and wouldn't have them otherwise.

Just as a question of interest....and knowing that we both agree that it's wrong to rape women (and being a woman, I do have a vested interest in having this remain 'wrong,')

Why is it wrong and where did you get that idea?

I also agree with you that atheists and theists both have the same basic moral underpinnings; that is, nuttin'.

We are...save for a very few people who seem to be 'hardwired' to be sociopaths...born utterly unaware of the difference between right and wrong, and have NO conception of what the folks around us would consider which.

We are all taught this stuff.

Now I also understand that there are quite a few Christians, because of the 'original sin' thing, believe that we are all born...not with a tendency to be moral, but rather with a tendency to do evil; to sin.

This does sorta come with the 'original sin' territory. I don't believe in 'original sin." Neither does the belief system I belong to. In fact, we tend to be rather adamant about not believing in it.

So I can see why some Christians (believers in original sin) might think that religion has 'saved' them, and that they are better off for it.

The question being begged here is...if you don't have religion, what moral and ethical standards to you hold to, and why on earth do y'all think (perhaps not necessarily YOU, specifically, but you know what I'm saying here) that turning away from religion is all one has to do to be a moral and ethical human being?

???????????

Isn't that a really odd...and far more outlandish, claim than any religion might make? And really...atheists have no standing upon which to make it. Talk about blind faith!

[Divine Insight]

In fact, you are attributing, to that set of 'many Christians' a position YOU are holding; that morality is innate, and religion is not required.

Where did I ever say that morality is innate?

I don't believe that. If that were true then everyone should be perfectly moral.

I'm a moral person because it's who I have naturally evolved to be. It could be genetic, in which case it would have been innate in my case. But that doesn't mean that it's innate for everyone because everyone doesn't have my genes.

After all, it seems to be your claim that theists don't have that innate morality, since they claim to require religion in order to set the standards by which to judge their morality.

That's not what I'm saying. On the contrary a theist could actually have good moral values and just accidentally push them onto religion.

After all if you agree with the morality of Jesus then you are the one who is condoning the morality of Jesus.

On the other hand, if you are getting your morality from Jesus, then clearly you were not originally in agreement with Jesus and you are just accept a moral standard that you believe to be moral simply because it's associated with Jesus.

I wonder if you and see the truly insane and circular illogic being used here?

I mean, really;

There is nothing circular about my logic. If you think it's circular than you clearly don't understand my position.

Given the premise that there is no God,

How can you possibly argue that people who turn to religion for their moral standards lack this innate morality that you claim for those who don't get their moral standards from religious sources?

I never made any claim that anyone is innately moral. Although I leave open the possibility that some people may be more innately moral than others due to genetics.

If there is no deity, then either we all have that innate moral center, or none of us do. It seems rather silly to argue that people who turn to religion for their standards are doing so because they LACK such a thing. After all, how could you miss something you never had and don't want? Why would you look for it?

We, as humans, define what is moral. I just happen to be in harmony with the overwhelming consensus of what constitutes morality. Of course, exceptions always apply because I'm sure that many Christians and Muslims would claim that I'm immoral just because I don't recognize their religious bigotries.

No, this is a really contradictory argument: if anything (should there be no deity) the mass turning to religion that we have seen over humanity's history is an indication that ALL of us have, or know that we need, a set of moral standards to live by...either that, or none of us do.

No it doesn't mean that at all. On the contrary the people don't typically turn to religion to seek moral values. They turn to religion in the hopes of escaping death, or possibly escaping the hateful wrath of some God. It's the religions that they tell these people that they must meet certain moral criteria in order to obtain a gift of eternal life or escape the wrath of a God.

Nobody turns to religion because they simply feel a need for moral values. So your claim that this is why people turn to religions is simply false.

Given the fate of those people who were not socialized, and who were isolated from human contact when children, I don't think you have the evidence to show that we are hardwired for morality.

I never claimed that anyone is hardwired for morality. On the contrary I totally reject the very concept of any sort of objective morality. All that exists are human opinions on what morality should be. That's all that exists.

Yes, as we grow and learn to think and make decisions, we can, and do, take into account everything we learn from our cradles.

But...DI...we all do it in the context of the things we've learned. Yes, young American teenagers rebel, decide which standards they will keep and which they will abandon; whether the standards they were taught are better or worse than the standards they find elsewhere.

However, a young American teenager will do his rebelling in English. He isn't going to make anything up; he's going to pick and choose among the ideas he is exposed to.

So? That still doesn't force him to choose any particular morality. After all, there do exist criminals right? Did society create them? According to you society must have created all criminal and immoral people. Because they couldn't have decided to be that way on their own.

That feral child from Germany isn't going to waltz into New Orleans and order beignets in French.

You are confusing environmental facts with forced programming.

You owe your present ability to think and make choices to the things you were taught, by other humans, as a child. Whether or not you agree with those things, it is those things upon which you base your present moral positions.

Actually that's not true. If that were true I would be a male-chauvinist and a racist. But I'm not. So I clearly made up my own mind on those things.

Especially you, DI, since (at least on this forum) your entire philosophical stand is based on hating someone else's beliefs and ideas. Personally, I think that's a waste of valuable time for both you and those to whom you speak.

I'm not concerned with your personal perceptions. They simply aren't a clear picture of truth. You have created your own DI that you imagine me to be. But I'm not that person that you have created in your imagination.

You really don't need to tell everybody else how stupid and pathetic they are; indeed, that tends to be counterproductive. You don't need to tell people how wrong and evil their beliefs are; first, you probably get their beliefs wrong in the first place, and people aren't going to change their beliefs because someone is attacking a belief they don't hold.

I feel that I do need to expose the derogatory Abrahamic Religions. I do not take it to the personal level that you perceive it to be. That's your perception, not my intention.

Exactly what do you have to replace Christianity? What set of moral and ethical standards is better than the ones Christians use, and what makes it better? Why would any of us be better off joining you in your diatribe of hatred than just being Christian, and helping our neighbors as we can?

I don't need to replace Christianity. Christianity needs no "replacement".

You either have moral values and care about your neighbors or you don't.

If you claim that you need Christianity in order to do that, then this goes back to my point about asking what you are REALLY like?

Why can't you help your neighbors without bringing religion into it. I do. I help all sorts of people all the time. Religion doesn't even come up at all.

It's true that I happen to believe that there is a spiritual essence to reality, but even if I didn't believe that I would still help out other people in a purely atheistic world. Why not?

I actually like helping other people, so I don't need any motivation beyond that to do it.

And how does any of this justify the belief that gods do not exist?

'cause, honestly, I don't see it.

It may not speak to the issue that no possible gods can exist. But it certainly speaks to the issue that it's not important to believe in any particular religion or specific God.

I can be just as "moral" as you without the need to even imagine that there is a God at all.

Why should a God be important for morality? Even if we are all just a bunch of Great Apes, don't you think we should help each other out anyway?

In fact, if there is no God that's probably even a better reason that we should be helping each other out. Who else is going to do it?

[Artie]

But tell me....if, as you seem to be claiming, that all children have their morals...or some sense of morality...hardwired, or is innate, then why are you claiming that theists don't have one?

Since people have different genes, the degree to which our brains are hard wired with morality and their capability to reason and learn is also different. Some people when they grow up are guided by their inborn sense of morality, mixed with logic, reason and common sense, empathy, altruism, compassion, conscience, respect for others, self-respect, love, duty, obligation, responsibility, they keep the laws and the Golden Rule etc. They require no religious guidance.

For the rest who may have shaky moral inborn foundations and/or reduced reasoning abilities and/or grow up in an immoral environment without proper guidance I recommend religion. How many times haven't we heard about people with questionable moral character, so called "lost sheep", who found religion and started behaving properly? That is simply because deep down subconsciously what is present of the moral hard wiring resonates with the religious message. It's a package deal. Not only do the "lost sheep" subconsciously identify with the moral codes, they feel the comfort and safety of belonging in a group of likeminded individuals. These "immoral" people might have ended up in gangs or prison or worse, but now many are useful members of society. It's a win win situation. So what if we have to provide them with a god and "shepherds" telling them the difference between right and wrong as long as they obey and behave in society?

[spiritualrevolution]

Just as a question of interest....and knowing that we both agree that it's wrong to rape women (and being a woman, I do have a vested interest in having this remain 'wrong,')

Why is it wrong and where did you get that idea?

Well if you want the cold hard truth there is no particular reason why rape is inherently wrong.

One possibility, from the most basic reasoning from an individual's standpoint, is that if you don't wanna get raped, then you should think it's wrong, since if rape were okay, everyone could rape everybody, making yourself a target for rape ( though you could then rape others too).

Personally, for me, I think it's cause people are born inherently with the inclination to aid one another, cause in the days of hunter gatherers, survival in groups were better, which leads to the necessity for stable social relationships, which are complicated by rapes. So groups with lower rates of rape survived better.

I, too, have a natural aversion to rape but if I think hard and critically I can't find a justification for why rape is wrong. Doesn't mean a thing about religion.

What is your justification for why rape is wrong?

[Divine Insight]

I, too, have a natural aversion to rape but if I think hard and critically I can't find a justification for why rape is wrong. Doesn't mean a thing about religion.

What is your justification for why rape is wrong?

In my own personal subjective view I think it's basically disgusting and undesirable for anyone to force anything onto another person who genuinely doesn't want to be the recipient of the action in question. That would obviously include rape, save for the instance when someone would actually like to be raped.

For me this would just be an extension of the Golden Rule which makes perfect sense to me. So rape would fall under the Golden Rule, no need to single it out or address it specifically.