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.

[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.

What was reset? The laws of physics?

I was thinking entropy. But, since theists often field a version of the fine tuning argument which claims that there were no laws of physics at the beginning of the big bang, then, yes, maybe that 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.

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.

I see we've been accidentally talking past each other. If you're going to arbitrarily define whatever happened before the big bang as not being part of the "universe," then I have to withdraw my assent to your defining science as the study of the universe.

Science tells us that the big bang happened. It does not, currently, tell us what happened before that. Therefore, science does not tell us that the big bang was the beginning of the universe (except as a convention, accompanied by some hedging language like, "At least we can call the big bang the beginning, because we don't know what happened before that").

Therefore, believing in the big bang does not logically require one to believe in a finite past.

[otseng]

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

In science, nothing is really known for sure.

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

No, I don't doubt models exist. As a matter of fact, I listed several earlier in this thread.

Krauss claims that the universe came out of nothing. But, his "nothing" is actually a pre-existing quantum vacuum in which the universe is a massive quantum fluctuation. This also has been discussed earlier in the thread.

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?

I have no idea what you are asking. What evidence ceases to exist?

[wiploc]

Krauss claims that the universe came out of nothing. But, his "nothing" is actually a pre-existing quantum vacuum in which the universe is a massive quantum fluctuation. This also has been discussed earlier in the thread.

Was it actually preexisting? I mean, was their a time when this vacuum existed but the rest of the universe did not yet exist?

[otseng]

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.

I do not follow you.

"Outside of time" can't apply to an eternal God. He has to exist for all time.

Technically, yes, I agree that God is not really "eternal". That is, I do not believe God lives within time and has existed forever in the past. But, God is eternal in the sense that God has always existed and will always exist.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 634 by otseng]

So long as he has always (and will always), that's fine, but if you want him to be outside time, he still has to be a bit inside time.


What I mean is, if time began to exist, then the Universe need only exist while time exists.

Since many people (esp. those theologians using cosmological arguments, and also those that work in cosmology) believe that time did begin to exist with the Universe (often they class time as part of the Universe) - or has finite history, then the Universe does not need to exist for an infinite amount of time in the past or future.

The Universe only needs to exist while time exists, in order to be truly eternal. If time had a finite history, and has a finite future, then the Universe could be finite and eternal. If time had a beginning, then not only can the Universe have a beginning, but it must have a beginning.


Personally though I support the B theory of time, so I would make an analogy of the Universe to a film. The three dimensions we experience at any one time are like the frames of a film. The frame number (or if you're playing the film, time) is the fourth dimension, time.
If you look at the whole DVD or film reel at once, the entire film is there, existing. But if you apply a subjective, tensed point of view - with a perceived arrow of time (as humans experience) - then it seems like only the current exists.
So while, in one sense, it seems like the Universe 'begins to exist' - so does the actual film (as opposed to the physical medium) - but in the actual sense, the physical film doesn't begin to exist (not at the same time as the film begins to exist, at least).

The beginning of the Universe is like the beginning of a ruler (i.e. the point it starts), only in time and not in space. It's because of the 2nd law that we experience an arrow of time.

[KenRU]

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.

…
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.

Genocide is committed by believers and non-believers alike.

I can’t speak for anyone other than myself, but I never meant to imply or state that religion should be outlawed. Forced beliefs (or non-belief as the case may be), using your examples, is simply a bad idea and is doomed to create hostility/animosity within the general public. A government that tries to force non-belief upon its citizens is making the same mistake a theocracy’ makes when it forces its citizens to believe in a specific religion. It puts up barriers between people, just as religion does. It would be a self-defeating assertion if I did believe that outlawing religion would be a good idea.

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,

No evidence exists that a god or gods exists, therefore no reason to believe in any.

that religion is a bad thing, and that getting rid of it is a good one.

As discussed in another thread, there is a relationship between education and disbelief:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/uni ... knowledge-...

The more secular countries tend to have less crime: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our ... d-religion

-All the best

[KenRU]

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

In science, nothing is really known for sure.

I was speaking generically, and I really doubt you did not gather my meaning, so why the word games?

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

No, I don't doubt models exist. As a matter of fact, I listed several earlier in this thread.

And yet you asked me to name them. Why?

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?

I have no idea what you are asking. What evidence ceases to exist?

Perhaps I should have said "reason" instead of "evidence". One of your arguments was that science has no explanation for the origins of the universe, thus (among other reasons you have yet to elaborate on) the reason/evidence/conclusion (whatever word you would like to use) for believing in god as creator of the universe is your justification. If that reason is explained another way, your need for a god just got smaller (evidence/reason/justification ceased to exist).

[Danmark]

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.

Agreed, it won't solve all the world's problems, just some of them. It won't cure cancer or stop the pollution of the planet . . .
. . . at least not directly. Religion, at least Islam* and Christianity, have in the past been bulwarks against truth, against science and discovery of reality. This tradition of science denial continues in the Christian Right and much of the Republican Party today. Climate change denial and the disbelief in evolution are only two examples.

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.

I think upon reflection you will see the logical error demonstrated by this sentence. You have failed to calculate the many variables in such a claim when applied to entire countries. One can eliminate some of the variables, but not all when we take a look at a narrower slice of the statistics and learn, for example, that in the U. S. murder rates are higher in States with higher church attendance according to the stats published at http://www.cybercollege.com/fog33.htm
... and ...

Bible Belt Statistics
The divorce rate, the murder rate and the obesity rate are all higher in the Bible Belt than in the rest of the United States. Somehow the Bible Belt example isn't improving society.
The Bible Belt has a higher murder rate than other regions of the United States[2] [3]
The Bible Belt's teen pregnancy rates are some of the highest in the country.[4]
There is more poverty in the Bible Belt than elsewhere. [5]
Health overall is poor. [6]
Sexually transmitted disease rates are also high. [7]
hate and intolerance is well represented. [8]

http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Bible_Belt

I don't offer these examples of proof Christianity causes murder, divorce, obesity and so on, but only as an example that your conclusion of the opposite is flawed.

___________________
*In an article by Hassan Hassan, he summarizes the problem in an essay in which he sets out to argue against it:
"In a recent essay, The New Atlantis, a US-based science and technology journal, drew a grim yet accurate picture of the state of science in the Muslim world. It reported that India and Spain each produces more scientific literature than all of the Muslim countries combined; Muslim world contributions to science amount to no more than 1 per cent and is of lower quality. The spirit of science in the Muslim world, the magazine added, is as dry as the desert.

It is a sad fact that sharply contrasts with the Golden Age of Arabic science (800-1100), when the Muslim world was the beacon of innovation and triggered Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. What went wrong?

Academics have long maintained that the great Islamic theologian, Abu Hamid Al Ghazali, who lived from 1055 to 1111, single-handedly steered Islamic culture away from independent scientific inquiry towards religious fundamentalism. In a remarkable intellectual shift, he concluded that falsafa (which literally means philosophy but included logic, mathematics and physics) was incompatible with Islam.

After writing his book, The Incoherence of Philosophers, Algazel as he was known in medieval Europe, is said to have "stabbed falsafa in such a manner that it could not rise again in the Muslim world". Thanks to his unparalleled mastery of falsafa and Islamic law, he injected repugnance among Muslims for science that ultimately led to its decline and, in the process, the decline of Islamic civilisation.

Or at least, this is what academics and Orientalists have argued for over a century. But I believe this assessment is wrong." [emphasis mine]
....
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalco ... ill-haunts

[dianaiad]

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.

Agreed, it won't solve all the world's problems, just some of them. It won't cure cancer or stop the pollution of the planet . . .
. . . at least not directly. Religion, at least Islam* and Christianity, have in the past been bulwarks against truth, against science and discovery of reality. This tradition of science denial continues in the Christian Right and much of the Republican Party today. Climate change denial and the disbelief in evolution are only two examples.

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.

I think upon reflection you will see the logical error demonstrated by this sentence. You have failed to calculate the many variables in such a claim when applied to entire countries. One can eliminate some of the variables, but not all when we take a look at a narrower slice of the statistics and learn, for example, that in the U. S. murder rates are higher in States with higher church attendance according to the stats published at http://www.cybercollege.com/fog33.htm
... and ...

Bible Belt Statistics
The divorce rate, the murder rate and the obesity rate are all higher in the Bible Belt than in the rest of the United States. Somehow the Bible Belt example isn't improving society.
The Bible Belt has a higher murder rate than other regions of the United States[2] [3]
The Bible Belt's teen pregnancy rates are some of the highest in the country.[4]
There is more poverty in the Bible Belt than elsewhere. [5]
Health overall is poor. [6]
Sexually transmitted disease rates are also high. [7]
hate and intolerance is well represented. [8]

http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Bible_Belt

I don't offer these examples of proof Christianity causes murder, divorce, obesity and so on, but only as an example that your conclusion of the opposite is flawed.

___________________
*In an article by Hassan Hassan, he summarizes the problem in an essay in which he sets out to argue against it:
"In a recent essay, The New Atlantis, a US-based science and technology journal, drew a grim yet accurate picture of the state of science in the Muslim world. It reported that India and Spain each produces more scientific literature than all of the Muslim countries combined; Muslim world contributions to science amount to no more than 1 per cent and is of lower quality. The spirit of science in the Muslim world, the magazine added, is as dry as the desert.

It is a sad fact that sharply contrasts with the Golden Age of Arabic science (800-1100), when the Muslim world was the beacon of innovation and triggered Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment periods. What went wrong?

Academics have long maintained that the great Islamic theologian, Abu Hamid Al Ghazali, who lived from 1055 to 1111, single-handedly steered Islamic culture away from independent scientific inquiry towards religious fundamentalism. In a remarkable intellectual shift, he concluded that falsafa (which literally means philosophy but included logic, mathematics and physics) was incompatible with Islam.

After writing his book, The Incoherence of Philosophers, Algazel as he was known in medieval Europe, is said to have "stabbed falsafa in such a manner that it could not rise again in the Muslim world". Thanks to his unparalleled mastery of falsafa and Islamic law, he injected repugnance among Muslims for science that ultimately led to its decline and, in the process, the decline of Islamic civilisation.

Or at least, this is what academics and Orientalists have argued for over a century. But I believe this assessment is wrong." [emphasis mine]
....
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalco ... ill-haunts

On one hand you accuse Christianity and Islam of being anti science, and indeed have painted Republicans and the 'Religious right" with so broad a brush as to be ludicrous.

Indeed, the tenor of your post is such as to assign the evils of the world to theism...as if human nature would be happier without it. You specifically mention "Climate change denial" in there...and I'll admit that I am, in that, a wee bit of a denier myself. Oh, not that there is 'climate change,' but I rather doubt that having the political left use it as a whip to drive their agenda is all that helpful.

For instance, one of the nastiest bits of environmental meddling and disaster was that of the Soviet Union when it made a lake...more like an inland sea in that it was as big as any of our Great Lakes...disappear in a lapse of judgment so huge as to be jaw dropping.

Yet, unlike the vast majority of modern nations, which are secular, not religious, the Soviet Union was OFFICIALLY anti-theist. One could not be a member of the Communist Party and hold office, or work in anything other than utterly menial positions. If you weren't atheist, you had no influence in the formation of the laws of that nation. Indeed, if you weren't atheist, you were expected to be flippin' close to invisible. If you weren't, you got jailed.

Or sent to Siberia.

Or dead.

................But the official atheistic stance, or anti-theism, of the Soviet Union or any of the other nations that were ACTIVELY atheist, that is, went to some lengths to eliminate religion, is not to blame for the environmental and human disasters that every single one of those nations committed, according to atheists looking to blame the world's ills on theism, but excuse their own philosophies.

But all I have to do here is to point out the basic truth. those murders happened. Those environmental disasters happened. Even in the face of global warming and the liberal insistence that it is the fault of right wing religious Republicans, and that everything would be just fine if everybody would wise up and vote for Hillary Clinton, those nations which still priviledge atheistic approaches (like, oh, China) are STILL the biggest polluters and contributors to global warming on the planet.

The point is, turning atheist will not stop any of it, and being religious didn't CAUSE any of it; not when atheistic cultures and nations are, quite provably so, more guilty of such excesses than most religious cultures (not all, of course).

As for me, well...

I'm a right leaning libertarian who mostly votes Republican. I admire the Tea Party, if only because nobody has to clean up after one of their rallies, where an "Occupy" type rally leaves the community/venue it targets destroyed.

I'm highly religious.

I'm also an evolutionist, pro-science, and pro-thinking for ones self, which is why the whole global warming thing would make me a lot more nervous if it weren't so obviously POLITICAL.

....and I'm not, by any means, unique.

[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'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.

I made a long post here but I'm going to edit it short.

I agree that atheists have made a grave mistake. They should have become specific anti-theists instead. They should simply point out the utter ignorance, immorality, absurdities, and hazards of the Abrahamic religions specifically.

Trying to claim that there cannot be any god at all is absurd. That's a flaw of atheism.

So yes I agree atheists would have been far better offer had they formed an anti-theist group that simply dismisses the Abrahamic religions specifically.

Let's get these hateful Abrahamic religions out of the way first. Then if we want to question the more abstract spiritual philosophies that should be taken on from an entire different perspective.

Islam and Christianity are a cancer on humanity. The spread hate, division, and bigoted degradation in the names of their false jealous Gods.

Both Yahweh and Allah are ignorant immoral fictitious absurdities. They were clearly modeled after the Greek Zeus with many negative and hateful character traits tacked on.

We need to get past these hateful religions. They are spreading ignorance and hatred throughout the world in the name of Jesus and Muhammad.

So I agree, "atheism" should really be "anti-theism" with a very specific focus on these Abrahamic theism.

Trying to argue that there cannot be a spiritual essence to reality on any level is just plain stupid. So atheism as an abstract movement is only shooting itself in it's own foot. But fortunately they are bringing into awareness the utter absurdities and immoralities of Christianity and Islam, in any case. But they could be much more effective if they would just focus on these immoral theisms, instead of trying to argue that there cannot be a god of any imaginable type.