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.

[Bust Nak]

OK, I'll take it then that you have no arguments/evidence that gods do not exist.

Other than what I've stated already, sure.

I don't want to debate semantics either. The point is that if you have no valid arguments that gods do not exist, then you fail to justify the belief of [strong] atheism.

I disagree. That gods are not immediate obvious at first glance is enough to justify weak atheism. That theists tried and still cannot demonstrate their existence is enough to justify strong atheism. Same with every mystical claim.

[instantc]

That theists tried and still cannot demonstrate their existence is enough to justify strong atheism. Same with every mystical claim.

That's based on the hidden presumption that if God existed, then those who believe in it would be able to prove it's existence. Can you show that the hidden presumption is true?

[wiploc]

That's based on the hidden presumption that if God existed, then those who believe in it would be able to prove it's existence. Can you show that the hidden presumption is true?

Theists generally stipulate that their belief is well founded. They claim that their gods are gods in whom reasonable people should believe, based on the evidence. Put another way, they claim that they aren't irrational for believing.

That is, they claim that these are the kind of gods that leave tracks, for whom the evidence is obvious.

So we ask them to show us the evidence, and they trot out fraudulent arguments that shouldn't fool a sixth grader. And that's all they've got.

So the gods that theists claim exist---gods that there is reason to believe in---don't exist.

So what's left? There could be other other gods, gods that theists don't worship, insignificant gods, powerless gods, gods that leave no evidence, gods that there is no reason to believe in.

Even the theists don't generally believe in these. They just argue for them when it is pointed out that they have failed to support the gods that they do believe in.

And these insignificant gods are like Russell's teapot, presumptively nonexistent. They could exist, but there is no reason to think they do, just like there is no reason to think that a hungry lion has teleported into your bathroom, and is waiting to kill you next time you have to take a pee.

Occam's razor makes sense. We couldn't get thru a day without it. Reasonable people use Occam's razor to decide that things like that lion --- weird things that there is no reason to believe in --- do not exist. It is reasonable to believe that the lion isn't in your bathroom. It is reasonable to believe that Santa isn't coming down your Chimney this Christmas. It is reasonable to believe that Russell's teapot doesn't exist. It is reasonable to believe that gods that don't produce evidence don't exist.

It is not reasonable to claim that we haven't justified strong atheism in this thread.

Recap:

1. There are some gods that theists would be justified in believing in if they existed. They would leave evidence. But that evidence is lacking. Those gods seem not to exist.

2. There are other gods that nobody is justified in believing in. They don't leave evidence. There is no reason to believe in them. These presumably don't exist either. They are weird enough, unlikely enough (or we wouldn't call them "gods") that they presumably don't exist.

Thus, it seems that no gods exist. Strong atheism is justified.

---

Another excerpt from my old speech:

-

Snulbug

Anthony Boucher wrote about a demon named Snulbug. Snulbug is less than an inch tall. He has a cavity in one of his tusks. His snakes <gesture> are falling out; he has a receding snakeline. And he is miserably cold here because he is used to the temperatures of Hell. The only time he isn't cold is when you smoke a pipe. Snulbug is small enough to snuggle down in the bowl with the burning tobacco and become very cozy. You know how you can put out a pipe by putting your thumb over the bowl? Well, Snulbug doesn't like that. But the thing you really want to avoid is absentmindedly turning the pipe over and knocking the ashes out. Hates it when that happens. Snulbug: he's my favorite demon.

I'm going to ask for a little audience participation now. I have three questions, and I'd like a show of hands. First question: <gesture> who here believes that Snulbug really exists? <pause> No hands? Wow, I'm in a room full of skeptics.

Second question: who here is willing to believe in Snulbug if presented with convincing evidence? <pause> Rationalist skeptics, very nice. So far, <smile and glance at Craig> everything is going my way.

Now, final question: We cannot prove that Snulbug doesn't exist. Nobody can prove that; it's impossible; but how many of you, in spite of that, have jumped to the conclusion -- at least the tentative conclusion -- that Snulbug does not exist?

Thank you. That is a reasonable conclusion. That conclusion is the fruit of rational minds. And that is my whole argument: we don't believe in god because we don't believe in the Easter bunny. Jupiter and the Easter bunny, Shiva and Santa Claus, Thor and the Great Pumpkin, in each case the reason for disbelief is the same. And those reasons apply with equal strength to Jehovah. Actually, there is an extra reason to disbelieve in Jehovah, but I'll have to come back to that. For now, let it suffice to say that you have just as good a reason to disbelieve in Jehovah as to disbelieve in the Great Pumpkin.

[Bust Nak]

That theists tried and still cannot demonstrate their existence is enough to justify strong atheism. Same with every mystical claim.

That's based on the hidden presumption that if God existed, then those who believe in it would be able to prove it's existence.

It's hardly hidden, I've outright stated that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence when evidence is expect.

I expect evidence should any gods exist.

Can you show that the hidden presumption is true?

Sure, every time something was shown to exist, there was empirical evidence to go with it; there had never been any counter-examples. Granted, *insert the problem of induction here.*

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by wiploc]
Only one thing. The continual failure for theists to demonstrate the existence of any gods, for the past 6000 years. That is enough for me to shift from weak atheism to strong atheism.

This is shifting the burden. The OP is asking for justification that gods do not exist. Claiming that theism has no valid arguments (which I disagree with) is not justification for atheism. And even if there is NO argument for theism, on your argument alone, it can only lead one to agnosticism, not strong atheism.

We don't have the burden of proof. I am justified to shift to strong atheism exactly because theists have consistently failed to meet their burden of proof. Think of the the boy who cried wolf story, there may in fact be wolfs eating his sheep, but the villagers are well justified to not merely be agnostic with regard to the safety of the sheeps, but actively believe his sheeps are not being attack.

In this thread, you do have the burden of proof. I have been reading it, and am quite interested in the posts. Every single one of the posts by non-believers is an attempt to disprove a specific theistic belief...even the parable of the pawnbroker is about that.

As otseng pointed out, that parable only proved that the customer was a liar and that all the chains he presented were 'not-gold.' It did not prove, or even provide evidence for, what the OP asked: proof that gods do not exist.'

Again, as otseng wrote, that parable, far from proving that gold chains do not exist, actually provides evidence that they do: the pawnbroker has a test for it; he has seen real gold chains. He knows the difference. Had gold chains not existed, he would not have had such a test; he would have shown the customer the door before he pulled the first one out of his pocket.

That's what's so interesting about this thread: it is asking for proof that gods do not exist, which is the 'strong' atheistic position; a positive claim: 'there are no gods."

Nobody here has offered any. All that has been offered is evidence/arguments that the religions addressed may not be true...but like those chains, proving each one false does NOT prove that there is no 'true' gold chain out there, and THAT, my friends, is what is being asked here.

So yes, the burden of proof, for this thread, is upon the one who states 'there are no gods."

Not 'I see no reason to believe in gods," but "there aren't any."

How about some?

The fact that , despite thousands of years of looking for evidence for a deity, there isn't any non-subjective evidence that there is one. For that matter, it doesn't seem that people can even agree on what God is.

That is evidence that God is just a man made concept.. and an ill defined one at a that.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 49 by instantc]

certainly instantc

our brains collective functions pave way for the existence of consciousness.

This can be demonstrated by damage to the brain.

countless cases have demonstrated how this effects conscious thought. Even furhter still the more brain damage that is sustained the greater damage to ones psyche entails. Finally conscious thought ceases when brain activity ceases.


ergo consciousness is a bi-product of a living system.

[instantc]

That theists tried and still cannot demonstrate their existence is enough to justify strong atheism. Same with every mystical claim.

That's based on the hidden presumption that if God existed, then those who believe in it would be able to prove it's existence.

It's hardly hidden, I've outright stated that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence when evidence is expect.

I expect evidence should any gods exist.

On what basis do you expect that there should be evidence? Do you have any arguments? Any justification? Why do you think there would be evidence?

Philosophers of science have long ago recognized that absence of evidence is evidence of absence only where such evidence could be reasonably expected, given the parameters of the hypothesis in question. It is up to the claimant to show that such evidence could be expected, you cannot just assert it.

[wiploc]

On what basis do you expect that there should be evidence? Do you have any arguments? Any justification? Why do you think there would be evidence?

The theists argue that their gods are the kind that it is reasonable to believe in, the kind that make a difference, the kind that leave evidence. That turns out to be false. Those gods don't exist.

The only thing left then is gods that don't make a difference, that don't leave evidence, that nobody can reasonably believe in. These gods are presumptively nonexistent, and nobody would care even if they did exist.

Philosophers of science have long ago recognized that absence of evidence is evidence of absence only where such evidence could be reasonably expected,

Right. And when a theist claims her belief is reasonable, she is claiming that her god is the kind that does leave evidence. We aren't the ones claiming that there should be evidence; theists are. We're pointing out that if the gods should leave evidence, and the evidence isn't really there, then the gods probably don't exist.

given the parameters of the hypothesis in question. It is up to the claimant to show that such evidence could be expected, you cannot just assert it.

We aren't the ones asserting it. Theists aren't saying, "I believe in god for absolutely no reason." No, they are saying, "My belief is well-founded, and," often enough, "the evidence is so obvious that you are a pervert or an idiot for not already agreeing with me."

It is fair for us to observe that, in the absence of evidence, the gods who would leave evidence if they really existed (the kind of gods theists tend to believe in) are presumptively nonexistent.

The other kind of god, the insignificant gods who don't leave evidence, not only probably don't exist but probably aren't what we mean by "god" anyway. Yes, you could discover a new beetle, a new element, a new star, something we had no evidence for in the past, but would there be any reason to call it a god?

Consider Xal-xe, the ascetic demon of quadratic equations. He has never communicated with a human; we have no reason to believe he exists. He will not arrive at earth for another eighteen years. When he does get here, he will proceed to punish, with a pair of pliers and a blowtorch, everyone who hasn't been worshiping him all along.

Xal-xe isn't mundane like a new beetle, star, or element. He's extraordinary, weird enough that we might fairly call him a god. But he's also weird enough that he presumptively does not exist. Reasonable people have reason to assume his nonexistence. Reaching the weak atheist position with regard to Xal-xe would require some evidence. He's weird and unlikely enough that we'd need a push even to reach a neutral attitude about him.

Thomas Jefferson heard about a meteorite. He said something like, "It is more likely that two professors would lie than that rocks would fall from the sky." That was a reasonable conclusion in the circumstances. But with regard to Xal-xe and Snulbug and and the Great Pumpkin, and other gods of the type that don't leave evidence, we don't even have the professors' testimony. There is no reason at all to believe, and plenty of reason to think they don't exist.

[Zzyzx]

.

On what basis do you expect that there should be evidence? Do you have any arguments? Any justification? Why do you think there would be evidence?

Advertising and promotion for an enclosed game preserve claims that there a lot of deer on the grounds. However, you see no deer, no signs of deer, no deer tracks after repeated snowfalls.

The promoter says, "You can't see the deer or their tracks unless you believe they are there, then you will see them."

Are you convinced?

Is the absence of evidence proof positive that no deer exist in the game preserve? Of course not BUT it is strong indication that the promoter isn't telling the truth.

If you wanted to see, photograph, or hunt deer would you look elsewhere or continue to look in the game preserve?

[Bust Nak]

On what basis do you expect that there should be evidence? Do you have any arguments? Any justification? Why do you think there would be evidence?

Philosophers of science have long ago recognized that absence of evidence is evidence of absence only where such evidence could be reasonably expected, given the parameters of the hypothesis in question. It is up to the claimant to show that such evidence could be expected, you cannot just assert it.

For a start, it is those who introduced the concept of gods that insist that there are evidence, have doctine that would leave evidence. Outside of that I would also expect a personal being would have agendas of their own, and where they act there would be evidence.