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.

[Jashwell]

"If it began to exist, it must have a cause" I never saw justification for this.

I was under the impression that a number of cosmologists believe time begun to exist.
If beginning means "the first point of time in which a thing exists" then if the beginning of the Universe coincides with the beginning of time, then the Universe is still eternal. (If time is part of (and sufficient for the group known as) the Universe as is often considered in cosmological arguments using the big bang theory, then the beginning of time would be the beginning of the Universe (by definition) anyway)


"Outside of time" can't apply to an eternal God. He has to exist for all time. If God is 'outside of time' like I might be outside of a room, then you can't say he's eternal any more than I can say I've taken up that whole room. But I guess "a bit inside but also a bit outside" doesn't have a good ring to it.
(an interesting tangent is whether "existing for no amount of time" is equivalent to "not existing")

It seems a lot of people want 'eternal' to mean something other than 'for all time', 'forever', etc.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 620 by dianaiad]

There is nothing in an 'anti-theistic" belief that can even be remotely interpreted as an order to kill or harm another human. Just as there is no reason a "theistic" belief (by the definition of the word "theist") can be interpreted as an order to kill or harm another.

There is, however, ample reason to harm/kill one another under any one of the many subsets of theism (religions).

To my knowledge, and forgive me if I am wrong, atheism (or anti-theism) has no equivalent subset.

[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.

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.

You've avoided the heart of the issue.
Tho' I can easily show how and where the Bible supports mass genocide, you have failed to show where atheism encourages anything of the sort.
It is an old, failed, and illogical proposition that because someone commits a crime, his belief system is to blame. Is it fair to blame Christianity for the fact that the vast majority of prison inmates are professing Christians?

"Humanism, in all its simplicity, is the only genuine spirituality."
_ Albert Schweitzer accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

I submit that for every Stalin, Pol Pot or Jewish leaders of the slaughter of the Canaanites and the Amalekites there are thousands of atheists and Christians who abhor the murders attributed to those leaders.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 620 by dianaiad]

There is nothing in an 'anti-theistic" belief that can even be remotely interpreted as an order to kill or harm another human. Just as there is no reason a "theistic" belief (by the definition of the word "theist") can be interpreted as an order to kill or harm another.

There is, however, ample reason to harm/kill one another under any one of the many subsets of theism (religions).

To my knowledge, and forgive me if I am wrong, atheism (or anti-theism) has no equivalent subset.

Certain anti-theistic subsets...especially those which were made official government policy, absolutely approved the killing of theists because they were theists.

Or, if you want to put it a different way, they approved killing people who were not anti-theist because they were theist.

But that's not the point.

There is nothing about the official atheism of those governments that stopped 'em from killing folks by the job lots, is there?

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 620 by dianaiad]

There is nothing in an 'anti-theistic" belief that can even be remotely interpreted as an order to kill or harm another human. Just as there is no reason a "theistic" belief (by the definition of the word "theist") can be interpreted as an order to kill or harm another.

There is, however, ample reason to harm/kill one another under any one of the many subsets of theism (religions).

To my knowledge, and forgive me if I am wrong, atheism (or anti-theism) has no equivalent subset.

Certain anti-theistic subsets...especially those which were made official government policy, absolutely approved the killing of theists because they were theists.

Such as? Government policy may advocate such things, but I am unaware of any atheistic or anti-theistic stances that advocate killing or harming others. Please provide an example.

Or, if you want to put it a different way, they approved killing people who were not anti-theist because they were theist.

Please provide an example of where this approval is tied to anti-theism or atheism.

But that's not the point.

There is nothing about the official atheism of those governments that stopped 'em from killing folks by the job lots, is there?

Of course there isn't. Atheism and anti-theism are stances against a belief system - they do not provide one. That is the critical point. Which is why (imo) it is not appropriate or correct to assign the blame you speak of on atheism or anti-theism.

-all the best

[Danmark]

There is nothing about the official atheism of those governments that stopped 'em from killing folks by the job lots, is there?

The problem is not the belief systems. For example the Hebrews were told "Tho' shall not kill," but that did not stop them from killing as part of an official order from the leadership.

The problem comes when our basic human tribalism is lit up so we see other tribes or groups as not worthy of the protection of the law. They become 'the other.' We've seen this in the U.S. when the Scofield reference Bible [and other influences] was used as justification for slavery via 'the curse of Ham.' The 'mark of Cain' has also been used.

As you well know, many groups in this country have been demonized in the name of Christianity, including Christians. Once they are declared 'the other' there is no protection.

[Divine Insight]

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.'

You're giving your definition form "believers" point of view. Atheists most certainly don't view themselves as "Being without God".

That don't do that anymore than they view their disbelief in Faeries as "Being with Fairies".

No, Atheism is precisely what the root of the words means, (without THEISM). Period. It has nothing to do with any gods other than perhaps the fact that theisms have to do with a belief in gods.

An atheist is a person who rejects "theism" period.

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

I disagree. An atheist doesn't need to be against theism in order to reject theism on a personal basis.

An anti-theist is a person who actually take action to fight against theism. Many atheists may also happen to be anti-theists, but not all atheists are anti-theists.

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--

Anti-theism is far more than merely rejecting theism because it has no merit. That alone would not even be reason to become an Anti-theist. An anti-theists is a person who fights against theism proclaiming that it's far more than just without merit. An anti-theists actually argues that theism is dangerous and detrimental to humanity.

And like I say, there are many atheists who are also anti-theists. They not only dismiss theism as having no merit, but they also go further to expose the dangers of theism in today's world.

Most atheists on this forum are likely to also be anti-theists or they probably wouldn't be here arguing against theism.

But all atheists are not necessarily anti-theists. If they simply reject theism but don't see anything wrong with other people believing in a theism then they are not anti-theists.

I am definitely an anti-theist and a very passionate one at that.

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.

I don't need it to be a plus for atheism. Atheism isn't in competition with theism. Atheism is NOT A BELIEF SYSTEM.

Atheism is simply what must exist in the face of the active and real theistic threat to the world.

Atheists are basically people who are sick and tired of being bullied by theists in the name of fictitious Gods.

Atheism and anti-theism in particular is actually a reaction to the negative oppression that theism tries to push onto people using their mythological Gods as an excuse for extremely immoral prejudices and judgements of other people.

Christianity is the most hypocritical of these since Christianity used the Christ as their battle ax of judgement upon others.

Christianity has made a hateful monster out of Jesus.

Islam isn't quite so hypocritical. They simply start with a hateful God and just continue to use him as a battle ax of hatred. So while their theology has no merit, at least it's being consistent in its immorality.

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.

To begin with where did I ever blame anything on a "God"?

On the contrary, I blame everything on theism! Man-made religions.

Just because a religion exists that is causing hatred to be spread in the name of its fictitious God doesn't mean that God is real.

You ask, "What would I replace religion with?"

I would replace religion with intelligence and reason. Period. That's all we need.

However, it's clear that this would not be easy because many humans on this planet are still behaving as apes and haven't exhibited much intelligence or reason to begin with. If they could do that we would no longer have all these jealous-God religions the spread hatred and bigotry in the name of their ficticioius Gods.

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....

Your personal experience is irrelevant. Christianity has been accusing people of being sinners and rejecting their God for centuries. If you have joined the Christian Cult or represent it in any way, then you have chosen to join a cult that has a history of casting stones at non-believers. For you to act like you have no clue why people they become defensive over Christianity can only reveal that you truly don't understand what the religion has been doing to non-believers for centuries.

They even continue to do it today. Just look at how the Christianity communities are fighting gay rights. They are are demanding that gay people are "sinners" who are somehow upsetting their Santa Claus God. They are throwing stones at Gay people.

They throw stones at scientists for merely teaching the science of evolution in schools when the Christian would rather their children are taught that Santa Claus created the Earth in 6 days.

Christianity had been throwing rocks at non-Christians for centuries. So if you preach or support Christianity in any way, then you need to take some responsibility for supporting the cult that throws rocks.

Don't act like you don't understand why people are fed up with this kind of religious bigotry being held out in the name of gods or demigods.

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.

I don't we'll ever know because the Christians aren't bout to confess that their believe system is based entirely upon their own wishful dreaming.

You did.

I did what?

Christianity is throwing tons of stones to this very day and I see no sign of them letting up.

If the Christians (collectively as institutions) would confess that their religion is nothing more than a personal belief system and quit trying to tell other people how to live their lives, I would be totally happy and I would no longer have any reason to bother arguing with the Christians. Who cares what they believe as long as they are using their beliefs as a weapon of hatred to beat other people over the head with.

Beat me over the head with a rubber Jesus Doll and I'll definitely complain about it.

And that's basically what Christianity does. Just like Islam beats people over the head with their rubber Allah Doll.

I personally have no problem with Jesus. It's the Christians who desperately lust in their hearts that Jesus will hate me for not supporting the Christian cult.

I personally believe that Jesus himself would call such Christians "hypocrites" just as he called the Pharisees hypocrites.

Christianity is a cult that tries hard to demand that Jesus hates me if I refuse to cower down to their particular cult.

As far as I'm concerned they just use Jesus as an excuse to hate people.

I can't even imagine the Jesus described in the Gospels supporting modern day Christianity at all.

[dianaiad]

KenRu wrote:

Of course there isn't. Atheism and anti-theism are stances against a belief system - they do not provide one.

Danmark wrote:

The problem is not the belief systems. For example the Hebrews were told "Tho' shall not kill," but that did not stop them from killing as part of an official order from the leadership.

Thank you.

You are both quite right, and that's the whole point. When the claim is that the world would be better off without religion, so that everybody would become atheist, or at least non-believing, Then the burden of proof is on the claimant.

You will notice that in my presentation I did NOT say that religions make men better (even though, as Danmark points out, religions can have some very basic prohibitions against actions that people take 'in spite of," and, oh...that's 'thou shalt not murder,' not 'thou shalt not kill.' There is a difference, and that's been controversial for several thousand years.).

All I have done here is to point out that getting rid of religion, or of theism, won't solve the worlds problems. If it did, then those officially atheist nations simply would not have been murderous. They would have been MORE ethical, more merciful, more careing, more logical, more...all the things that getting rid of religion is supposed to make one.

And it didn't. In fact, in every single case where atheism was the official stance (not 'secularism,' which is what the USA is, but 'atheism,' as in...religion is against the law), genocide was SOP.

In every single instance.

So, to bring this back kicking and screaming to the topic of the thread, the ball is in your court. Justify the belief that gods do not exist, that religion is a bad thing, and that getting rid of it is a good one.

Or that there is something about religion (if there is no god in the first place) that is so very outside human nature that getting rid of it would make everybody sing kumbaya, kiss all the babies and share s'mores with their enemies.

[otseng]

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.

What was reset? The laws of physics?

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?

I'm saying that science is not able to show what happened before the Big Bang. Again, if science is the study of the natural world (the universe), then it cannot study anything outside of the universe, including what was prior to the universe.

[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?

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'm not emphasizing the point whether atheists have a belief system (which I'm not convinced they don't have one). I'm questioning how readily would atheists admit that they base their belief that no gods exist on pure faith.