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.

[Danmark]

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?)

Perhaps, but I think what we'd find is great examples of religious beliefs influencing both the promotion of learning as well as its suppression.

[wiploc]

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.

"Miraculous explanation"? Oxymoron anybody?

I'm not saying there were no laws of physics. All I'm saying is that I am unaware of any scientist saying that the big bang was the actual beginning (as opposed to a conventional beginning like the first day of January, of the first year of our lord).

Your claim is that I have to believe in a finite past if I believe in the big bang. Despite repeated opportunities, you haven't explained why that is.

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.

That's as arbitrary as if I defined Jehovah as nonexistent.

Is that your whole case? I have to believe the big bang is the beginning because you define it that way?

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

Then what is science?

The study of all of the natural world, regardless of when it happened, notwithstanding any arbitrarily defined limits.

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

So, what are you suggesting?

You said that if I believe in the big bang, then I have to believe in a finite past. I'm trying to learn why.

In case you believe that science declares the big bang to be the actual beginning, the thing before which nothing else happened, then I point out as follows:

Asimov didn't seem to believe that;
Hawking doesn't seem to believe that;
A cosmologist I talked to more recently doesn't seem to believe that.
I don't know of anyone with expertise on the subject who seems to believe that.

Though I confess that the title of Krauss's latest book gives me pause. It is possible that he thinks there was a first moment of time, and that this happened at the beginning of the big bang. But that's just an inference from a title.

In any case, I don't know of a scientific consensus that there was no time before the big bang. If you do know of such, I'd like to hear about it.

If you don't know of such a consensus, but you still believe that belief in the big bang should entail the belief in a finite past, then I'd like to know your reasoning.

[dianaiad]

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.

this is a classic fallacy of composition. Notice; I did not refer to 'atheism.' I referred to 'anti-theism' and 'humanism,' (though there are theistic humanists out there).

you are quite right. "atheism' is not a philosophy of life. Anti-theism is, however, and so is secular humanism.

BTW, THEISM isn't a philosophy of life, either. For that, just like with atheism, one has to choose one of the...ahem...philosophies of life that are found within the greater classification of theism or atheism.

So....you are claiming that because atheism AS A WHOLE, isn't a philosophy of life, that none of the systems found under it are philosophies of life, either?

That's illogical.

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.

Sure it is. It's a fairly simple one, mind you, consisting as it does of one thing: it's acceptable and admirable to be against theism and theists. I hate to break this to you, but that IS 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.

Really?

And all those people who use the, say, ten commandments or the teachings of Jesus as their moral basis are actually getting them from, where...the aether somewhere?


<snip rant>

DI, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how asinine I may find it. You are entitled to post it here, if you follow forum rules.

However, your opinion is no better than mine, in this area. You don't like theism. I get it. You think we are pathetic, and stupid, and you like to roll your eyes a lot.

I get that, too.

However, be careful lest I demand that you prove that everything you wrote is absolute fact; that theists are, indeed, pathetic and immoral because they get their standards from a place you claim you don't get yours.

[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.

Really?

And all those people who use the, say, ten commandments or the teachings of Jesus as their moral basis are actually getting them from, where...the aether somewhere?

Many of the ten commandments are absurd. The first four are basically a jealous God commanding that everyone must worship him. And yes, if I roll my eyes a lot it's only because of how utterly stupid it is to hold the Biblical Commandments up as though they represent some sort of absolute morality that everyone will agree with. Many people wouldn't see the first four of those ten as even having anything at all to do with morality.

DI, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how asinine I may find it. You are entitled to post it here, if you follow forum rules.

However, your opinion is no better than mine, in this area. You don't like theism. I get it. You think we are pathetic, and stupid, and you like to roll your eyes a lot.

I get that, too.

I agree that my opinion is no better than yours. And yours is no better than mine. Therefore, for you to suggest that I should believe in Hebrew mythology has absolutely no more merit than my suggesting to you that you should not believe it. If you would even grant me that much I would be more than pleased.

However, be careful lest I demand that you prove that everything you wrote is absolute fact; that theists are, indeed, pathetic and immoral because they get their standards from a place you claim you don't get yours.

I never said that exactly. I didn't say the are pathetic and immoral because they claim to get their morality from the Bible. I say that if they need to get their morality from the Bible then they are indeed pathetic. And they are clearly amoral by their own confession since they claim that they need to get their moral values from something external to them. How could they claim to be moral if they have no sense of morality of their own?

As far as I'm concerned it's a tautology and there's nothing that needs to be proved. If you need to get your morality from a source other than yourself then you are automatically confessing that you have no sense of morality of your own.

I think the "Golden Rule" is pretty obvious as being a valid rule of thumb for morality. And that moral ideal doesn't belong to any specific religion. It certainty didn't originate with either Jesus or Hebrew mythology.

I mean, after all, what sense does it make to do to other people what you would not like them to do to you? You certainly don't need Christian mythology to live by that rule of conduct.

What moral values does Christianity teach that wouldn't be covered by the Golden Rule? A lot of Christian "morality" has to do with worshiping God or Jesus. That's where Christianity becomes a real nuisance. It's not good enough that people live by the Golden Rule, if they aren't worshiping Jesus as the demigod Son of Yahweh then Christianity is out to condemn them no matter how moral they might be.

That's the problem with Christianity dianaiad. It's not about morality at all. On the contrary it's all about the idol worship of the demigod Jesus. That's the focal point of Christianity.

This is why when they claim that it's all about morality it makes me want to puke. It has virtually nothing at all to do with morality. You can get perfectly good morality from Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and even modern pagan religions like Wicca. They offer perfectly fine moral values.

The only reason that Christianity and Christendom condemn those other religions is solely because they aren't worshiping Jesus as the demigod son of the Hebrew God Yahweh. Period amen.

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with morality. All it has to do with is trying to own the copyright on a supposedly jealous God through Jesus as "The Christ".

It has absolutely nothing at all to do with morality. Christianity doesn't offer any better morality than any other religion, and in fact, it actually has quite a few moral values that I personally reject as being immoral. Your own personal views on that are obviously different, but that's irrelevant.

Christians can't even convince each other what "perfect morality" should be. They clearly have no clue.

[spiritualrevolution]

Suppose there were a god/gods.

why would god/gods create the universe?

why would they bother to interfere with said universe?

Since belief in god doesn't answer these questions, it's more logical to believe in no god.

The only other good reason for belief in god is the belief that bad people are gonna get punished, aka karma, and I wanna believe in a system like that but there is no evidence to support this so...

[Artie]

However, be careful lest I demand that you prove that everything you wrote is absolute fact; that theists are, indeed, pathetic and immoral because they get their standards from a place you claim you don't get yours.

A moral person is moral by nature. An immoral person by nature doesn't become moral just because he starts obeying orders he thinks comes from a god, he's just an immoral person good at obeying orders. And that is the function of religion. Getting immoral people to behave morally. If a child behaves badly and doesn't understand why he shouldn't a father might set himself up as an authority figure and say "Because I say so!" With religion we have simply set up an authority figure for adults who don't understand why they should or shouldn't do things. "Because god says so!"

[Divine Insight]

The only other good reason for belief in god is the belief that bad people are gonna get punished, aka karma, and I wanna believe in a system like that but there is no evidence to support this so...

For me that's not even a reason why I would want to believe in a God. I have no need for "bad people" to be punished. What good is that going to do me?

If I'm going to believe in a God, the only reason that I would even care for a God to exist is if that God could provide me with a world where there is no pain and suffering. And that includes a lot more than just removing "bad people". A lot of other natural stuff is going to need to go as well, such as biting mosquitoes, poisonous snakes, other dangerous animals, diseases, genetic defects, unannounced natural disasters, etc.

The problem with that is that if there actually did exist a God who was capable of providing those things why hasn't he already done it?

Why am I living in a world filled with dangerous animals, diseases, genetic defects, unannounced natural disasters, AND bad people to boot? I see no reason for any of that stuff to have ever been created in the first place.

I'm a good person. Clearly if there exists a God why couldn't that God have simply created a lot of good people like me? After all if this God created me then I'm living proof that God has the ability to create a good person.

So why does all that other negative stuff exist then?

The mere fact that it does exist is pretty much proof positive that no God exists.

If a God actually existed I should be living in heaven right now. In fact, heaven should be all that exists.

~~~~~

That brings up another problem. According to Christian mythology there was a heaven before the earth was created. The only problem is that even in that heaven there were supposedly "bad angels". Satan himself was a bad angel that God cast out of heaven. And supposedly a full third of God's angels were also bad and sided with Satan and where thrown out too.

That only tells me that this Christian God's heaven isn't any better than Earth. In fact, Earth actually seems to be a far better place than heaven. If full third of God's angels turned against him that 33% criminal. Yet on Earth crime rates are far less than that. Violent crimes are only committed by less than 2% of the population. And all crime including things a trivial as traffic violation are committed by less than 10% of the population. So crime on Earth is evidently a lot less than crime in heaven.

According to Christian mythology Earth is actually a better place then heaven. Moreover, if you actually get to heaven there's a 33% chance that you won't like God.

That doesn't sound like a very promising religion to me.

I think we can be 100% certain that God does not exist. At least not as described by things like Christian mythology and other Abrahamic myths.

The Eastern Mystics have an idea of a "god" that could potentially exist. But even that picture isn't totally convincing.

[dianaiad]

However, be careful lest I demand that you prove that everything you wrote is absolute fact; that theists are, indeed, pathetic and immoral because they get their standards from a place you claim you don't get yours.

A moral person is moral by nature. An immoral person by nature doesn't become moral just because he starts obeying orders he thinks comes from a god, he's just an immoral person good at obeying orders. And that is the function of religion. Getting immoral people to behave morally. If a child behaves badly and doesn't understand why he shouldn't a father might set himself up as an authority figure and say "Because I say so!" With religion we have simply set up an authority figure for adults who don't understand why they should or shouldn't do things. "Because god says so!"

This response is not only an answer to you, Artie, but to DI and to the others who have posted here that morality is somehow innate in humans, and that those who 'need' religion for an ethical base are somehow more deficient than people who do not 'need' religion for their moral centers.

The irony of this idea is absolutely delicious, actually.

Science has proven that humans are neither moral nor immoral "by nature." They are blank slates, upon which society writes the moral and ethical codes.

We know this because of the cases (thankfully, very rare) of children who grow up without contact with human culture, the 'feral' children.

It turns out that the more intelligent the species; bigger brains and ability to make choices, the longer the 'childhood,' needs to be, because one cannot 'hardwire' everything needed for survival. It must be taught.

...........and if it isn't taught, the young one is in a great deal of trouble. We know this from watching orphaned animals; it's changed, dramatically, the way that rescuers deal with animals they hope to return to the wild. If the young animal, elephant, tiger, wolf, dolphin...any of the 'higher order' thinkers...doesn't get taught properly, it simply will not survive. There's not as much 'instinct' to help as one might at first think.

This is especially true for the 'great apes,' and absolutely essential for humans. I've already imbedded a link to a site about feral children. Here's another one. Yes, it's Wikipedia, but scroll down. This Wiki article has an amazing list of external sources to go to.

The upshot is, without socialization, early and intense, human children grow up to be not only ammoral, (not 'immoral,' there's a difference) but utterly unable to function normally in human society.

In other words, humans are not 'naturally' moral or 'naturally' immoral. They are born utterly innocent.

You have to be taught this stuff. Really. Everybody, and I do mean the non-religious among us, too, get their morals from an external source. Really. Cross my heart and everything. Mankind traded hardwired instinctual behaviors for the ability to learn new things very, very long time ago.

Indeed, to claim that people are 'moral by nature' or 'immoral by nature' is at least as irrational and, indeed, 'supernatural' position to take than any claim about the existence of God.

I'll certainly accept the position that humans are 'innocent by nature,' as we come into the world completely unaware that there IS a 'right' or a 'wrong,' and what actions belong to which set, but that we might be 'naturally' disposed to morality or immorality?

No. It's true, my religion comes right out and says that, but more to the point for you guys, science has shown that this is so. there is no hard wired set of moral guidelines programmed into human brains. Sorry.

You get your morals from someone, and something, external to you. You NEED that set of morals simply in order to exist in the culture you live in. That this set may not be attributed to some religion (though that's arguable) doesn't suddenly mean that you don't need it, because you do.

As I mentioned, the irony in this argument is delighting me no end; I, the true believing theist, am using science to argue against a completely unscientific and...dare I write this...superstitious and completely unfounded notion of moral superiority for non-theists.

As if non-theists get their moral guidelines from....what? Where DID you get your idea of what right and wrong is?

................and no, you were not 'born with it.' Nobody is.

[Artie]

Science has proven that humans are neither moral nor immoral "by nature." They are blank slates, upon which society writes the moral and ethical codes.

Rubbish. "Philosophers and psychologists have long believed that babies are born "blank slates," and that it is the role of parents and society to teach babies the difference between right and wrong; good and bad; mean and nice ... But a growing number of researchers now believe differently. They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don't create one."
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/ba ... als-ac360/
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013 ... moral-life
http://www.amazon.com/Just-Babies-Origi ... 0307886840

[Divine Insight]

Science has proven that humans are neither moral nor immoral "by nature." They are blank slates, upon which society writes the moral and ethical codes.

What you state here is actually only partly true. Also if you accept this as having been proven, then clearly God did not "write morality onto the hearts of men" which many Christians claim he did.

To begin with the part I disagree with is the claim that "society writes the moral and ethical codes" onto the blank slates of children. This is certainly partially true and may be more true in some cases than others. Everyone isn't a mindless robot who just accepts whatever society or their parents and teachers tell them (some people obviously are though).

But many people do indeed think for themselves and decide for themselves their own moral values. Moral values that may not even be remotely close to those of the society, parents, or teachers that they may have had.

I will agree with science that we are Great Apes. And that we do much of our learning via "Monkey See, Monkey Do". Young Children will often attempt to emulate their parents behaviors. In fact, even as we grow older when we see someone else do something that we think is clever, the very first thing we think of is "Hey I'm going to start doing it that way too!"

It's perfectly natural to learn from examples that we see before our very eyes.

But still, I think that when it come to moral values individuals are still individuals who make up their own minds in many case. Just because children are born as a "blank slate" doesn't mean that society "Writes their morality out for them". On the contrary society actually gives them a vast spectrum of morality to choose from. Picking and choosing precisely what the individual accepts as being moral is ultimately the decision of the individual.

And as I have already said, everyone is not the same. Some people are clearly better at thinking for themselves than others. There certainly are those people who go through life proclaiming that they believe what they believe either because their mommy or daddy "Says it's true", or maybe because they point to a Bible or Qur'an and claim "This book says it's true so I believe it".

Clearly there are people who do that and are apparently totally incapable of thinking for themselves.

So everyone is not the same. In fact, people who are capable of thinking for themselves may not even be able to communicate with those people who cannot think for themselves, because the latter people have no understanding of cerebral sovereignty.