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.

[otseng]

Any Christian who truly understands that their belief is based on pure faith should be able to totally accept the faith-based beliefs of anyone else as being just as valid as their own faith. Including atheists.

But that is seldom if ever the case.

Is there any atheist that believes their belief system is based on pure faith?

[otseng]

If you hang a bucket of water over a fire, you expect the heat from the fire to go into the water. That is, heat moves from high concentration to low; the water warms up, and the fire cools off.

But it could go the other way. The heat from the water could go into the fire. The water could freeze, while making the fire hotter. There's no reason it couldn't happen. It's just that on average, the heat tends to flow from hot to cold. How strong is this tendency? So strong that, if you could fill the known universe with buckets of water over fires, and keep it that way from the big bang until now, you wouldn't expect to observe the water freezing one time.

It could go the other way, but not on average over a long period of time. Over time, like you said, the water warms up and the fire cools off. Eventually, they will both reach the same temperature if they were the only two things in consideration. This can also be applied to the cosmic scale. Given enough time, everything will either cool off or heat up to one temperature. At that point, the universe will have reached the heat death.

then it's possible to reset entropy back to zero (or whatever the minimum is) every time.

Unless the laws of physics change when the universe bounces, entropy will not be reset.

He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."

And we're also to repeat "God could not have created the universe" three times too?

But if you can show me a scientific consensus that nothing happened before the big bang, then I'm likely to change my mind.

Actually, science is not able to give any answer of what happened before the big bang.

So why do you say that, given the big bang, the universe cannot be eternal?

If the universe had a beginning, then it can not be eternal. I thought that's fairly obvious.

I have disturbing news. I asked the cosmologist what the currently (this was probably ten years ago) most popular theory was. He said it was that the farther back you went, the closer you got to the big bang, the more time slowed down. Thus, the big band was [in what fricking sense?] infinitely long ago!

And why did time slow down the closer to the big bang?

Since God created the natural world, God is not bound by science.

Special pleading, circular reasoning, begging the question.

How so?

[otseng]

Not to mention we don’t necessarily know a Cause (or cause) is definitely necessary.

If the universe began to exist, then it requires a cause.

And if it didn’t begin (always was) then it doesn’t.

Yes. That is why practically all cosmologists prior to the acceptance of the Big Bang theory posited an eternal universe.

Lawrence Krauss explains there are many such models. I see no reason to believe an extraordinary claim over a natural one by a theoretical physicist.

I’m not making an “appeal to authority� here. I’ve already admitted to not knowing. But if you’re asking me what is a reasonable possibility, then I’ll go with one of the models he spoke of.

Which are?

If one of Krauss’s models ever becomes proven true, then you are.

No, I'm not. If any naturalistic model for the origin of the universe is proven true, I will stop arguing for God's existence. I will then say that it is by pure blind faith to believe in God.

[Divine Insight]

Any Christian who truly understands that their belief is based on pure faith should be able to totally accept the faith-based beliefs of anyone else as being just as valid as their own faith. Including atheists.

But that is seldom if ever the case.

Is there any atheist that believes their belief system is based on pure faith?

Insofar as I am aware atheism is not a belief system. It's simply a philosophy that rejects theism on the grounds that theism has no merit. And I agree with that philosophy in general regarding certain theisms.

I always say that I'm an atheist with respect to the Abrahamic religions just as I am an atheist with respect to the ancient Greek religions.

In the case of the Abrahamic religions I go much further and confess that I'm actually an anti-theist. I believe that these religions are clearly false and disprove themselves via their own dogma. I also feel that these religions are detrimental to humanity. Almost all of the trouble we're seeing in the Middle East is all over these Abrahamic Religions.

Even in the less troubled Western world where people aren't actually killing each other over religion, religion is still a major cause of division. We see it all the time. And it's only getting worse as the atheists begin to finally fight back. And rightfully so IMHO. Atheists have been oppressed by Christians for centuries. It's only really been in the last few decades when atheists have been able to speak out publicly without fear of being publicly crucified in terms of character.

I don't blame the atheists at all. They are way overdue for speaking out. I'm glad to see the strong atheist movement in today's free world and I'm very glad to see many scientists jumping on the bandwagon of atheism.

Today in America we are seeing a "social war" between the Christians and Atheists. But that's really the nature of this religion. It's not the nature of atheism.

Christianity is actually the "accuser". Christians are the ones who have historically cast the first stone. All the atheists are doing is casting those same stones back and pointing out that they have nothing to do with any God.


But the Christians keep throwing the stones. It's never going to end until the Christians stop throwing stones.

[wiploc]

then it's possible to reset entropy back to zero (or whatever the minimum is) every time.

Unless the laws of physics change when the universe bounces, entropy will not be reset.

We're talking about the past, though, right? Was it reset in the past? We don't know.

But if you can show me a scientific consensus that nothing happened before the big bang, then I'm likely to change my mind.

Actually, science is not able to give any answer of what happened before the big bang.

But you said that anyone believing in the big bang has to believe in a finite universe. So why are you now saying that we don't know what happened before the big bang?

So why do you say that, given the big bang, the universe cannot be eternal?

If the universe had a beginning, then it can not be eternal. I thought that's fairly obvious.

It's not obvious to me. But let's set that aside. I'll stipulate for the sake of this discussion that an infinite time has not passed since a beginning.

Why can't the universe be eternal if it had a big bang?

Is it that you assume the big bang was the beginning? We don't know that. We don't know what happened before the big bang.

[dianaiad]

Any Christian who truly understands that their belief is based on pure faith should be able to totally accept the faith-based beliefs of anyone else as being just as valid as their own faith. Including atheists.

But that is seldom if ever the case.

Is there any atheist that believes their belief system is based on pure faith?

Insofar as I am aware atheism is not a belief system.

No, 'atheism' is not.

but then, neither is 'theism.'

However, all atheists, like all theists, have a belief system that may be folded into that very broad classification of "God" or "No God."

It's simply a philosophy that rejects theism on the grounds that theism has no merit.

Oops.

You just took one step too far. "Atheism" in and of itself doesn't reject 'theism on the grounds that theism has no merit." Some forms of atheism do, certainly, but 'atheism' as a whole?

No.

"Atheism" is simply being without God, or living without a belief in one. There is no quality of 'rejecting' theism in the definition of 'atheism.'

If one's atheism is based upon the rejection of theism, then one is anti-theist, not simply and only atheist.

And if one can ask if any theist believe that their belief system is based upon pure faith, then one can ask the same of atheists.

And I agree with that philosophy in general regarding certain theisms.

I always say that I'm an atheist with respect to the Abrahamic religions just as I am an atheist with respect to the ancient Greek religions.

In the case of the Abrahamic religions I go much further and confess that I'm actually an anti-theist.

There you go. Now 'anti-theism' may well be defined as "a philosophy that rejects theism on the grounds that theism has no merit," but defining atheism that way is a bit like...

no, make that exactly like...

Christians claiming that the definition of theism is "a philosophy that believes in one creator deity who spoke to men who then wrote the bible."

Talk about a 'True Scot" fallacy--

I believe that these religions are clearly false and disprove themselves via their own dogma. I also feel that these religions are detrimental to humanity. Almost all of the trouble we're seeing in the Middle East is all over these Abrahamic Religions.

Even in the less troubled Western world where people aren't actually killing each other over religion, religion is still a major cause of division. We see it all the time. And it's only getting worse as the atheists begin to finally fight back.

Indeed. Given the death toll of the twentieth century that the 'atheists fighting back' totaled up, I guess I have to agree with you on that one.

I fail to see how this is going to be considered a 'plus' for atheism, though.

And rightfully so IMHO. Atheists have been oppressed by Christians for centuries. It's only really been in the last few decades when atheists have been able to speak out publicly without fear of being publicly crucified in terms of character.

I don't blame the atheists at all. They are way overdue for speaking out. I'm glad to see the strong atheist movement in today's free world and I'm very glad to see many scientists jumping on the bandwagon of atheism.

Today in America we are seeing a "social war" between the Christians and Atheists. But that's really the nature of this religion. It's not the nature of atheism.

NO????

Got news, DI.

....and I would like you to think about this. Make it an epiphanal set of thoughts, if you will.

If there is no deity...please stay with me on this...if there is no deity, then there never WAS a deity. If there never was one, no deity has ever been responsible for any belief system or religion ever devised by mankind.

Indeed, if there is no deity, and never was one, then (and I'm going to bold, italicize and otherwise emphasize the following) you cannot blame a deity for anything that has happened 'in the name of' deity.

In other words, if there is no god, and never has been a god, then men have been without god all along. Atheists. Without god...responsible for their own actions behaviors.

We have found that when men become atheists and begin to behave and live 'without god,' that they do not instantly become enlightened beings who are full of peace, joy and brotherly love. Indeed, we see from fairly recent history that men, even though their official policies and belief systems were atheistic, can be, and were, murderous to a degree that no religion has ever matched in the written history of mankind.

their proclaimed atheism DID NOT STOP ANY OF THE MURDERS. It didn't stop the torture, or any of the political and military mayhem perpetrated upon people by atheistic leaders.

In other words, DI, anti-theism is about the most contradictory bit of philosophical reasoning I can imagine, blaming, as it does, a nonexistent Being for the ills of the world, figuring somehow that if we just stopped believing in a god, that everything would be just dandy.

I've yet to figure out how that's supposed to work.

If there is no god, and never was one, then men are responsible for all the mayhem you are blaming religion for...and getting rid of religion would do...what...exactly?

How would it change human nature?

I submit that it would not, and we certainly have plenty of evidence that it would not, and has not.

Now, if you have a philosophy that is better than religion..more loving, more reasonable, more ethical than 'religion,' wonderful. Let's hear it. If it IS so great, there are plenty of people, I'm certain, who will see the light and flock to agree with you.

But frankly, DI, I wouldn't be one of 'em, if all you have to offer is 'blame the god who doesn't exist" and a grand pointing out of all you think is wrong with religion.

Give us something with which to replace it, if you think it's so horrible. I, for one, would be interested in figuring out what it is you DO replace it with.

Christianity is actually the "accuser". Christians are the ones who have historically cast the first stone. All the atheists are doing is casting those same stones back and pointing out that they have nothing to do with any God.

Hmnn.

Well, DI, when we talk about 'throwing stones,' remember that at least one of us have had experience with this...with real rocks. Now I haven't thrown any stones, metaphorical or real, at anybody. I have, however, had them thrown AT me.

Now, true, no atheist has done so that I know of, but one DID sic his dogs on me.

Ok, they were miniature poodle puppies, and they wouldn't let me leave without petting 'em all, but still....

But the Christians keep throwing the stones. It's never going to end until the Christians stop throwing stones.

OK, you are quite right. It won't end until Christians stop throwing stones.

But what makes you think that if Christians 'stop throwing stones" the atheists won't keep throwing?

Because human nature is human nature. God or no God, religion or no religion, "It" (whatever 'it' is...you forgot to define that) won't stop if religion stops. People will simply find something else.

You did.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 616 by dianaiad]

If there is no deity...please stay with me on this...if there is no deity, then there never WAS a deity. If there never was one, no deity has ever been responsible for any belief system or religion ever devised by mankind.

Indeed, if there is no deity, and never was one, then (and I'm going to bold, italicize and otherwise emphasize the following) you cannot blame a deity for anything that has happened 'in the name of' deity.

In other words, if there is no god, and never has been a god, then men have been without god all along. Atheists. Without god...responsible for their own actions behaviors.

We have found that when men become atheists and begin to behave and live 'without god,' that they do not instantly become enlightened beings who are full of peace, joy and brotherly love. Indeed, we see from fairly recent history that men, even though their official policies and belief systems were atheistic, can be, and were, murderous to a degree that no religion has ever matched in the written history of mankind.

I was with you until this last, including "a-" means "not, without, lacking"
and "anti-" refers to "against." Altho' we should keep in mind that "atheist" has taken on broader and more varied definitions than are suggested by a literal application of prefixes. The same is true of "theist" which at least to me refers to a particular kind of God ['he' must be personal] as opposed to any kind of god.

But my temperature rises when I hear claims like "... their official policies and belief systems were atheistic, can be, and were, murderous to a degree that no religion has ever matched...." This one always bothers me because we know, both from general history and from the Bible and the Quran that not only do we have examples of mass murder by religionists, but those religions have specifically authorized or ordered mass genocide. The same claim cannot be made about atheism. True some* who are considered atheists have been mass murderers, but atheism, unlike Islam and the Judeo-Christian tradition, has never called for mass murder as part of its credo.

__________________
*One can go round and round on the favorite examples, Hitler and Stalin, but we all agree both were raised Christians and Hitler claimed to be one while he was doing his best to exterminate Jews.

[KenRU]

Not to mention we don’t necessarily know a Cause (or cause) is definitely necessary.

If the universe began to exist, then it requires a cause.

And if it didn’t begin (always was) then it doesn’t.

Yes. That is why practically all cosmologists prior to the acceptance of the Big Bang theory posited an eternal universe.

But they all agree that nothing is known for sure, correct?

Lawrence Krauss explains there are many such models. I see no reason to believe an extraordinary claim over a natural one by a theoretical physicist.

I’m not making an “appeal to authority� here. I’ve already admitted to not knowing. But if you’re asking me what is a reasonable possibility, then I’ll go with one of the models he spoke of.

Which are?

He mentioned them in a debate I watched recently, and my apologies but I don’t remember their names. So, I searched online, and found the following: quantum gravity models (loop quantum cosmology’s bounce models), various cyclic models, many vacuum fluctuation models and non-singular models. Some of the names I came up with (though I do not know if these are the one’s Krauss is referring to or not) associated with these models are Vilenkin and Tyrons.

Just out of curiosity, do you doubt that such models exist?

If one of Krauss’s models ever becomes proven true, then you are.

No, I'm not. If any naturalistic model for the origin of the universe is proven true, I will stop arguing for God's existence. I will then say that it is by pure blind faith to believe in God.

The evidence just ceases to exist, correct? And that is different how?


-All the best,

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 616 by dianaiad]

Indeed. Given the death toll of the twentieth century that the 'atheists fighting back' totaled up, I guess I have to agree with you on that one.
Someone was killing in the name of atheism? Please provide and example.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 616 by dianaiad]

If there is no deity...please stay with me on this...if there is no deity, then there never WAS a deity. If there never was one, no deity has ever been responsible for any belief system or religion ever devised by mankind.

Indeed, if there is no deity, and never was one, then (and I'm going to bold, italicize and otherwise emphasize the following) you cannot blame a deity for anything that has happened 'in the name of' deity.

In other words, if there is no god, and never has been a god, then men have been without god all along. Atheists. Without god...responsible for their own actions behaviors.

We have found that when men become atheists and begin to behave and live 'without god,' that they do not instantly become enlightened beings who are full of peace, joy and brotherly love. Indeed, we see from fairly recent history that men, even though their official policies and belief systems were atheistic, can be, and were, murderous to a degree that no religion has ever matched in the written history of mankind.

I was with you until this last, including "a-" means "not, without, lacking"
and "anti-" refers to "against." Altho' we should keep in mind that "atheist" has taken on broader and more varied definitions than are suggested by a literal application of prefixes. The same is true of "theist" which at least to me refers to a particular kind of God ['he' must be personal] as opposed to any kind of god.

But my temperature rises when I hear claims like "... their official policies and belief systems were atheistic, can be, and were, murderous to a degree that no religion has ever matched...." This one always bothers me because we know, both from general history and from the Bible and the Quran that not only do we have examples of mass murder by religionists, but those religions have specifically authorized or ordered mass genocide. The same claim cannot be made about atheism. True some* who are considered atheists have been mass murderers, but atheism, unlike Islam and the Judeo-Christian tradition, has never called for mass murder as part of its credo.

__________________
*One can go round and round on the favorite examples, Hitler and Stalin, but we all agree both were raised Christians and Hitler claimed to be one while he was doing his best to exterminate Jews.

1. I have never included Hitler in my examples of twentieth century murders that atheism didn't stop.

2. Stalin may have been 'raised' Christian, but the majority of atheists right here on this board were 'raised' Christian. How does that make them less atheist now? They, as did Stalin and his cohorts who made atheism (or 'anti-theism,' which you really do have to concede is a subset of the larger atheistic universe) official policy, were atheist when they claimed it.

3. Just check the body count. I have, many times. The FACT is that the officially atheistic groups of the twentieth century killed more people in about fifty years than religion has managed to do in the last two thousand.

Now, I've heard the arguments that the only reason this is true is because modern technology enabled killing to be more efficient....but starvation has always been available.

The point is, and I was very careful about making it, that atheism did not STOP any of that killing, did it? Human nature, being as it is, came forward and people did what they do. Their official atheistic policies did not stop any of the murder, mayhem or torture, whatever the motives for them were...and it cannot be denied that the motives for many of those murders were 'you are theist and we don't like you."

In other words, there is nothing morally or ethically superior about atheism. Becoming an atheist does not make one kinder, wiser, smarter, more ethical or less likely to rob a bank.

Sorry...but it doesn't. This would be ESPECIALLY true if it turned out that there's no God and never was one.

There are atheistic philosophies that, if properly lived by, would indeed make life better for those willing to truly examine their behavior and the reasons for it.

But these do not comprise the whole of atheistic thought, any more than the religions that are so despised by atheists on this forum comprise the whole of theism.