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.

[Divine Insight]

My point is simple: if atheism didn't cause all these murders, nothing in it stopped them, either. Most religions do have rules against such stuff which must be 'gotten around,' or used.

Atheism has no such problem.

Some atheistic systems do, such as humanism, et al....but anti-theism certainly doesn't. In fact, anti-theism is nothing but hate. You don't offer anything in the place of theism.

So why should anybody listen?

Atheism is NOT a philosophy of life. So no, there is nothing in atheism that would prevent anything. It's NOT a philosophy. It's just a rejection of theism. Period amen.

Anti-theism is also NOT a philosophy of life. It's simply a an attack against a theism based on the idea that the particular theism under attack is itself derogatory or causing harm to humanity. Although I suppose an anti-theist could attack a theism for no good reason. Anti-theism is NOT a philosophy.

We don't need a "replacement" for religion. Religion truly has nothing to do with morality and never has. That is the great pretense of religion.

Christianity uses a few basic ideas that every sane person would agree with as foundation for morality and then acts like they own the copyright on morality.

That has never been anything more than utter hogwash.

Any person who actually needs religion to be a moral person is clearly not a moral person at all. It's that simple.

No one is a greater shining example of a moral person than a moral atheist. A person who has high moral values simply because it's what they personally desire and for no other reason.

People who need religion in order to be moral are, without a doubt, pathetic.

Albert Einstein supports this view and I totally agree with him:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein

I absolutely agree with this.

I'm sick of hearing about Christianity and morality. It's absolute hogwash. If you need religion to be a moral person then you are in a very poor way indeed.

And the idea that just because someone doesn't believe in ancient rumors about a demigod doesn't mean that they are an immoral person.

Christianity is disgusting precisely because it holds this up as basically a religious bigotry. It's basically demanding that if people don't believe in the Christian demigod then they can't be moral people.

That is absolute hogwash.

And if this has to be true for Christianity to be true, then Christianity is most certainly as false as it can possibly be.

It's nothing more than an underhanded tactic used by an ancient cult to try to coerce people into joining and supporting the cult lest they be socially branded as being an "Immoral Person who has Rejected God".

That dianaiad, is the hallmark of a hateful religion.

Any religion that brands people as being immoral if they fail to join the cult is itself a highly immoral religion. It should outlawed as a "Hate Cult", IMHO. And I'm dead serious about that too.

I am really fed up with Christianity using Jesus to condemn anyone who doesn't join or support the Christian hate cult.

It's absolute nonsense.

Like I said earlier, in another thread a Protestant was condemning a Catholic for praying to the Virgin Mary instead of to Jesus.

Like as if Jesus is a extremely hateful egotistical pig or something. If you don't worship him he'll throw a temper tantrum and hurt somebody. And that's supposed to be a loving all-wise God? Sounds more like a spoiled immature teenager to me.

[instantc]

We don't need a "replacement" for religion. Religion truly has nothing to do with morality and never has. That is the great pretense of religion.

In your subjective view of morality though, right? Kinda like chocolate has nothing to do with tastiness, it's that simple!

Any person who actually needs religion to be a moral person is clearly not a moral person at all. It's that simple.

Again, I take it that this is so only in your subjective taste of morality, correct? If so, then this is equally pointless to saying that anyone who does not like strawberries has a terrible taste for food.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 643 by dianaiad]

But how does actively opposing religion equate to killing theists?

when 'actively opposing religion' includes punishing those who practice religion, when anti theism becomes the official law of the land and official policy includes doing nasty things to theists that end up killing 'em.

That's when.

Once again, where would the anti-theist get this idea? Anti-theism has no dogma, scripture or any form of “bible� (secular or otherwise).

The choice to do this has just as much to do with anti-theism then it does with gardening. Since anti-theism has no “philosophy�, it is simply a stance. That is all. There is no call to arms or action required (other than in the most broad sense of the word).

Not all anti-theism does this, but those who do this happen to be anti-theists.

You know, the way not all Muslims are extremist Jihadists, but extreme Muslim Jihadists are Muslim?

Once again, you’re missing the relationship. Theists (religionists) have dogma, scripture and holy books guiding them. Many of the hate crimes committed in the name of religion have “holy words� or interpretations to back up their actions. Anti-theists have no such out. If they commit a crime or murder, it is solely on them and their conscience. They do not have a supernatural god to say “it’s ok, god says so� or a god to forgive them.

That is entirely my point.

Don't commit the True Scot fallacy here of figuring that if there are anti-theists and anti-theist movements that do not call for murdering theists, that no anti-theists and anti-theists movements do.

Please show me a movement that is based on (not just includes) anti-theism. There are forms of government that INCLUDE anti-theism, but not based upon it, because, as has been said here numerous times, it does not offer a philosophy.

As for anti-theists committing crimes and murdering, they may very well be anti-theists. I don’t doubt for a second they could be, but I really don’t care. What they do was inspired by their hate and fear, and not any dogma associated with anti-theism – because there ISN’T any.

What in an ant-theist doctrine (is there even such a thing???) can be the root of this belief?

In order to believe that anti-theism condones or calls for murder, you would have to have evidence or reason, or proof. Just because the Soviet Union had an anti-theist policy and advocated slaughtering people, does that define all anti-theists?

No, but I made no claim that it did.

Please explain Post 647: “I made no claim that anti-theism 'calls for murder and mayhem." I think it does.�

Unlike many anti-theists on this forum who seem to think that one verse in a book means that all theists are out to bash the heads of babies against rocks.

I don’t think that, but the point I’m trying to make is that if a theist wanted to bash babies heads against rocks, they could probably find holy words to justify it. An anti-theist could find no such justification – because there is no doctrine to refer to.

The difference here, as I've said, is that theists have doctrine to debate about. Anti-theists don't. So, how can you make this claim?

What claim?

That anti-theism inspires actively killing theists, or at best, what relationship anti-theism has with violence. If you think there is no relationship, then I’m very confused and do not understand your point.

As to anti-theists not having a "doctrine," of course they do. ATHEISTS may not have, as a factor of being atheist, but 'anti-theists' definitely have one; it is 'religion is bad, we don't like it, and we oppose it."

I see nothing in your words above that remotely call for violence. Do you?

Killing a theist because he is a theist makes one an anti-theist, by definition.

No, it makes him a murderer. His holding a personal belief against religion makes him an anti-theist. Just because someone holds a contrary view doesn’t automatically make them violent towards that view. That is your bias, and in no-way reflects the definition of the word.

Wikipedia: Antitheism (sometimes anti-theism) is active opposition to theism. The term has had a range of applications; in secular contexts, it typically refers to direct opposition to organized religion or to the belief in any deity, while in a theistic context, it sometimes refers to opposition to a specific god or gods.

Dictionary.com: n. also anti-theist, "one opposed to belief in the existence of a god," 1813; see anti- + theist. Related: Antitheistic.

Nowhere in the above definitions can you link this belief with violence.

By your own logic, because theism is in direct opposition to anti-theism, I can ascribe the same violent link to all theist belief systems because they are also in direct opposition with anti-theism.

An officially anti-theist government which has laws that provide for severe penalties for the practice of, and belief in, a religion, and policies that include death for practicing a religion are anti-theist by definition;

No, they are oppressive and violent by definition. One can be officially against the practice of religion without being violent. IE: England is officially Christian, but does not oppress other faiths (or non-faiths), correct? How is that any different?

one does not do such things if one supports religion, after all. In fact, one does not do such things if one merely attempts to ignore it.

So the only way you see to oppose religion is via violence? If not, maybe you will then see the point I’m trying to make.

Are you honestly going to tell me that the officially atheist (or rather, anti-theist) governments I've already referred to did not have such policies and laws?

Of course not. I’m saying that there is no direct correlation between violence and anti-theism. Just like there is no direct correlation between theism and violence (but there can be with religion).

That does bring us back to the purpose of this thread, though, I think, which is...hmn....justify the belief that gods do not exist. Or in this case, justify your belief that anti-theism is a good thing and that getting rid of theism will help anything at all.

I have provided evidence (as have others) See post 636:

“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 ... tion...�

Because history and the evidence certainly is not on your side in this.

See above for relevant evidence, which is on my side, btw.

History provides no evidence to review because a purely anti-theist government – never existed. Violent governments behave violently, non-violent governments behave non-violently. That is what history shows.

[Divine Insight]

We don't need a "replacement" for religion. Religion truly has nothing to do with morality and never has. That is the great pretense of religion.

In your subjective view of morality though, right? Kinda like chocolate has nothing to do with tastiness, it's that simple!

Any person who actually needs religion to be a moral person is clearly not a moral person at all. It's that simple.

Again, I take it that this is so only in your subjective taste of morality, correct? If so, then this is equally pointless to saying that anyone who does not like strawberries has a terrible taste for food.

Everyone judges the morality of God no matter what they believe.

It's pretty simple really.

Consider Christianity. Either you judge Jesus and Yahweh to be "righteous" in everything they do and completely agree with their morality, or you disagree with their morality.

If the former is true then you are simply condoning the morality assigned to these religious characters.

If the latter is true, then you necessarily believe God and Jesus to be immoral by your standards.

In short, your sense of morality is necessarily your own subjective view whether you confess to this or not.

~~~~~~

Another way of looking at this also is the following.

If you have a God myth that you claim is righteous and moral, and you tell me that your God is righteous and moral, but I personally do not agree with the morality that your God myth proclaims, then your God myth is mot moral by my subjective standards.

Suppose your a Christian. Then why have you rejected Islam?

Is it because you think Jesus and Yahweh represent higher moral standards than Muhammad and Allah? If so, then this can be nothing other than your own subjective judgment.

In fact, many Christians argue that Jesus represents the epitome of morality. But that is nothing more than a subjective claim on their behalf. After all, if there is no such thing as subjective morality then who can say that Jesus is any more moral than Adolf Hitler?

In short, if we have no subjective morality, then we have absolutely no ability whatsoever to even recognize morality when we see it. Morality would be a concept that we are totally incapable of even grasping.

Because if we can understand what is moral and what isn't moral, then we must necessarily have a subjective understanding of it. And also a subjective agreement with it.

I doubt very seriously that there are many people going around doing things they consider to be immoral just because some God myth claims that it's the moral thing to do.

~~~~

If you're going to tell me that some God represents "absolute objective morality" but that God demands things that I consider to be immoral, then why should I believe in your God myth?

As far as I'm concerned my own personal moral standard far outshine the biblical claims of what is moral, and that even include the teachings of Jesus which, IMHO, aren't necessarily all that moral anyway.

Like I say, if you agree with the morality of Jesus then all you are doing is giving Jesus the green light of your own subjective moral standards. You're just agreeing with Jesus, and that's a subjective action on your part. So there's no getting around it. Your moral values are necessarily nothing more than your own subjective views. Period amen.

I'm not saying that I'm the only person who has subjective moral values and that everyone else must accept my moral values. All I'm saying is that everyone's sense of morality is their own subjective views.

We live in a world of animals. Do you need to convince all other animals on this planet to agree with your subjective morality in order to get along with them? No, you don't. Humans are just animals. It's not necessarily for you to try to push your subjective sense of morality onto others.

The idea that we need religions to get everyone to agree on a single moral standard is simply unnecessary. In fact, the religions that have tried to do this to the extreme (i.e. Christianity and Islam) have done nothing but cause a lot of grief and hostility in the world.

You don't see the Buddhists going around dictating to everyone precisely what they must deem to be moral or immoral. Buddhism is about spirituality. Christianity is about ramming horrible moral concepts down the throats of anyone who isn't already a Christian.

I must also point out another obvious TRUTH.

If the whole world were converted to Christianity tomorrow that would only be the beginning of the real holy wars. The Christians are already arguing between themselves pointing fingers at each other. If the whole world converted to Christianity then they would need to have more wars and arguments to discover which sect and denomination has the "Absolute Objective Morality".

The religion is a sham and doesn't not even have an absolute morality to offer. The Bible itself is wildly self-contradictory on moral values and Jesus clearly did not agree with the morality of the Old Testament even though he is said to have hypocritically claimed that he didn't come to change the laws and that not one jot or tittle shall pass from law. Yet, all he did was sit around preaching moral values that are a completely opposite to the moral laws of the Old Testament.

Christianity is a train-wreck of a religion.

Islam at least stayed on track with the original immoral God. But ironically almost every Christian subjectively believes that the Islam and Allah are immoral.

Spiritually does not need to become totally obsessed with morality like these Abrahamic religions have become. The Buddhists and Taoists do just fine without any need to become lost in obsessions with morality. They realize that most sane intelligent people will have rational morality. And there will always be those who are mentally ill. That cannot be avoided. It's just a fact of life.

[otseng]

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.

You do realize that if there was no laws of physics, then you'll have to throw out any scientific explanation. The only thing left would be a miraculous explanation.

If you're going to arbitrarily define whatever happened before the big bang as not being part of the "universe,"

I don't think it's an arbitrary definition. I think by definition the big bang was the origin of our universe.

I have to withdraw my assent to your defining science as the study of the universe.

Then what is science?

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

So, what are you suggesting?

[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.

Yes, God can interact with our spacetime.

If time had a finite history, and has a finite future, then the Universe could be finite and eternal.

I think you're using eternal in a non-conventional way here. But, as long as we agree that the universe is finite, then that's all that matters.

[otseng]

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

Actually, no, I did not gather your meaning. What did you mean?

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?

Because you simply said Krauss had a model, but you never said what it was. I wanted to make sure that I was addressing the model that you are thinking he said.

If that reason is explained another way, your need for a god just got smaller (evidence/reason/justification ceased to exist).

Yes, one of the pivotal arguments for a creator God would cease to exist if a naturalistic explanation was proved to be true for the origin of the universe.

[otseng]

Religion, at least Islam* and Christianity, have in the past been bulwarks against truth, against science and discovery of reality.

Actually, I would argue the opposite. Islam and Christianity have been instrumental in the rise of the sciences and the discovery of reality. (Hmm, perhaps a good topic for a head-to-head?)

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 656 by otseng]

Finite in the past. Could plausibly be infinite in the future.
Eternal means for all time. That is the standard way of using it, correct?

Still waiting for someone to show that the Universe must have a cause.

[otseng]

Religion, at least Islam* and Christianity, have in the past been bulwarks against truth, against science and discovery of reality.

Actually, I would argue the opposite. Islam and Christianity have been instrumental in the rise of the sciences and the discovery of reality. (Hmm, perhaps a good topic for a head-to-head?)