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.

[spiritualrevolution]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

Yea, i don't think there is an absolute objective morality either.

Human morality is entirely a human concept. We made it up. It's ours to define however we so desire. There is no Santa Claus God who will condemn us to hell if we don't obey some supposedly objective absolute morality.

Yea, I agree, although, I want there to be a punishment for bad guys from santa claus god. It's just wishful thinking though...

Actually in like all the movies usually the bad guy get's his just desserts, but that isn't real life. I wonder if that's why superhero movies are so popular.

[wiploc]

Just as a question of interest....and knowing that we both agree that it's wrong to rape women (and being a woman, I do have a vested interest in having this remain 'wrong,')

Why is it wrong

I'm a utilitarian: Rape is wrong because it tends to make people unhappy.

and where did you get that idea?

I don't know. I imagine that I'm genetically receptive to being taught morality, and then I just picked up the basics by social osmosis. After that, I probably started looking around for a way to make sense of moral claims, and utilitarianism worked for me.

I've never read Mill. I did read some Bertrand Russell at a formative age.

I also agree with you that atheists and theists both have the same basic moral underpinnings; that is, nuttin'.

I won't agree that it's nothing. Some animals can't be domesticated. Some humans may be doomed to be sociopaths regardless of upbringing. Most of us have a combination of nature and nurture that produces the desire to be moral.

We are...save for a very few people who seem to be 'hardwired' to be sociopaths...born utterly unaware of the difference between right and wrong, and have NO conception of what the folks around us would consider which.

We are all taught this stuff.

I suspect that you're overstating the case.

The question being begged here is...if you don't have religion, what moral and ethical standards to you hold to, and why on earth do y'all think (perhaps not necessarily YOU, specifically, but you know what I'm saying here) that turning away from religion is all one has to do to be a moral and ethical human being?

I started this thread, but I haven't closely followed all parts of it. So I can't swear that nobody has said that turning away from religion is all one has to do to be moral. But I doubt it. I suspect that's a strawman.

Isn't that a really odd...and far more outlandish, claim than any religion might make?

Of course not. If somebody has made that claim, it is no more outlandish than many religious claims.

And really...atheists have no standing upon which to make it. Talk about blind faith!

Again, I don't believe anyone has made that claim. If someone has, I repudiate the claim.

I do believe that we'd be far better off without religion, kinder and less bloodthirsty.

I also believe that you've done surprisingly well taking the other side of this issue.

But your argument, while surprisingly good, isn't compelling to me. I'm not a communist, for instance, regarding communism as one more in a string of bloodthirsty religions, even if it is non-theistic. And I think the reason that anti-theistic countries are so good at execution has more to do with modern technology than with non-theism. Imagine if the Inquisition had had the atom bomb.

And I'm not for making Christianity illegal. I just wish that fewer people would do it.

I'm happy to stipulate that many theists are generally pretty moral, good roll models (setting aside the morality of having and promoting outlandish unjustifiable beliefs). But I still believe that religion tends to inflame other differences, to make hatred and violence and cruelty more prevalent.

... How can you possibly argue that people who turn to religion for their moral standards lack this innate morality that you claim for those who don't get their moral standards from religious sources?

Again, I don't see anyone making that claim. Some theists, notably William Lane Craig, claim that nobody---not just theists---has any morality except that given them by a god. I'd be surprised if anybody made the claim that theists don't have innate morality but atheists do. That would be weird.

Given the fate of those people who were not socialized, and who were isolated from human contact when children, I don't think you have the evidence to show that we are hardwired for morality.

I think feral children are damaged by their lack of socialization. If you didn't give them food, they'd be damaged by that too. Starving them wouldn't show that they aren't hardwired for eating; failing to socialize them doesn't show that they aren't hardwired receptive for socialization.

Exactly what do you have to replace Christianity?

This seems a strange question, like, "You want me to sweep the floor? What should I replace the dirt with?" {I'm having trouble coming up with a neutral-enough example. I started out with operating to remove a tumor. Even this example may have some people thinking I'm comparing Christianity to dirt. The point I'm trying to make is just that you don't always want to replace things.}

What set of moral and ethical standards is better than the ones Christians use,

Utilitarianism.

and what makes it better?

It addresses the core of the issue, without confusing extraneous off-point rules.

Why would any of us be better off joining you in your diatribe of hatred than just being Christian, and helping our neighbors as we can?

Helping neighbors sounds good.

I associate Christianity with hatred. I think it, on average, encourages it. Christians are often scary.

And how does any of this justify the belief that gods do not exist?

I don't know specifically how the subject came up in this thread. Generally, though, it comes up when some Christian tries to "prove" the existence of god by claiming that a god is the only way to explain morality.

At that point, it becomes relevant for atheists to point out that we can be just as moral as Christians, and perhaps are, on average, a bit more so.

Somehow they have managed to morph this into an accusation that theists are only theists because they are so innately, naturally, nasty people that without religious morals and standards, they would be monsters of depravity.

I suspect this is another strawman. If someone has made that claim, I repudiate it.

The problem is this; NONE of you have shown me why 'not theist' provides any sort of ethical/moral standard that would be better than every single religious one.

Again, if someone made that claim, I don't think it is defensible.

Yes, the 'golden rule' is a very practical and simple moral/ethical standard to live by.

And RELIGION gave it to us. Atheists did not. Religions....quite a few of them, as a matter of fact, did.

Religions record and transmit moral rules, but that's no reason to suppose they originated this one.

So what have you got, guys, in the way of ethical/moral standards of behavior that were not first found in some religion somewhere? Really....what?

"Honor the sabbath," and "Have no other god before me," look like they are of religious origin. But rules against killing, lying, stealing, those presumably predate religion; they are a necessary part of social living.

And how does accusing theists of being immoral because they choose to abide by standards found in a religious belief system justify the belief that gods do not exist?

It's just a rebuttal argument. It does not itself justify strong atheism. It merely refutes a purported justification of theism.

[Divine Insight]

A replacement for Christianity.

I was just thinking about dianaiad's need to have a replacement for Christianity. I don't think a replacement is really necessary but Wicca would surely be a suitable replacement.

Wicca has a very simple rede. "Do as you will but harm none". What could be simpler? You don't need a long list of commandments from a jealous God who's screaming "Worship me! Worship me! Worship me!"

Just don't do anything to harm others and your pretty safe. It's a pretty simple rede and doesn't require a lot of space to write it down.

I don't think we really need to have a replacement for Christianity. But for those who need a replacement I'm sure there are lots to chose from.

I think Buddhism or Taoism are also good choices. But they too tend to be far more wordy than necessary.

You can't be the simple rede of Wicca. "Do as you will but harm none".

That's got to be the most efficient dogma in the entire universe. You can write it down in seven words. That might even hold divine meaning for those who like to think of seven as a divine number.

[Artie]

Tu Quoque is a fallacy. Pointing out that some theistic belief systems are also, and have also, been murderous does not excuse, nor change, the fact that every single time religion has been officially outlawed in a nation/state, the belief systems/practices that take the place of atheism have been, without a single exception, murderous and genocidal.

Are those systems/practices murderous and genocidal because they are "not theistic"? Obviously not, because there are "not theistic" systems/practices that are not murderous and genocidal. You have to look for other reasons why those you mention are.

Yes, the 'golden rule' is a very practical and simple moral/ethical standard to live by.

What's ironic about that? Except when it is used by atheists as a non-religious ethical standard...and claimed as having somehow been invented by non-theists.

Of course the Golden Rule or the Ethic of Reciprocity wasn't "invented" by non-theists. It simply evolved. Even a vampire bat will share its food with a starving or sick roost mate simply because the behaviour was selected for by evolution since it enhances the chances of survival for the colony and the individual bat. You really have to read some of the good books on the evolution of morality available.

And RELIGION gave it to us.

Of course not. The opposite. People incorporated it into their religions because it's such a basic evolved moral code that practically everybody agree it's good to follow it no matter what else they might believe religionwise.

Really?

Prove it. Every single incident and reference that we have to the Golden Rule, in any of its many iterations, have come from a religious source, religious writings, or from a spiritual leader.

But you are quite certain of your claim, I see. Please show us where the Golden Rule existed before, and apart from, any use it had in a religion.

G'head.

Prove that a vampire bat when it acts according to the Golden Rule and Ethic of Reciprocity didn't get it from a god or a religious or spiritual leader?

[dianaiad]

Tu Quoque is a fallacy. Pointing out that some theistic belief systems are also, and have also, been murderous does not excuse, nor change, the fact that every single time religion has been officially outlawed in a nation/state, the belief systems/practices that take the place of atheism have been, without a single exception, murderous and genocidal.

Are those systems/practices murderous and genocidal because they are "not theistic"? Obviously not, because there are "not theistic" systems/practices that are not murderous and genocidal. You have to look for other reasons why those you mention are.

No, actually, I don't.

The thing is, you are now committing a true scott fallacy; simply because there are atheistic belief systems that are not murderous (and frankly, most are not, I do concede), this does not mean that none are. The point is, the claim so often made, and the one made here in this forum, is that religion is the cause of mayhem and human nastiness, and that getting rid of it would cure the world's moral ills. Indeed, the claim, which you are, in part, making, is that morals are 'evolved' and 'natural' to man. If that were so, then there should have been at least one culture in which religion was outlawed that was NOT murderous and genocidal; one in which the atheistic...which was the official stand of the government every inch as much as any state religion in any other nation...that had a humanistic, 'humane' look on life. There should have been at least one in which the atheistic philosophy adopted by the powers that be mitigated against killing people by the job lots.

But there wasn't one.

The experiment was tried several times, y'know, and it ended up being fatal for, at the least, hundreds of thousands in Albania alone (which, I think, may be one of the only two nations still existing which are officially anti-theist/atheist), to the 60 and 70 MILLION dead each, accumulated by Maoist China and the Soviet Union.

If removing religion from the picture was supposed to make everybody happier, healthier, more reasonable, etc., etc.,....why didn't it? Whether the reasons for all those deaths is directly attributable to some anti-religious philosophy or not, the POINT is that the anti-theistic/atheist philosophies held DID NOT STOP THEM.

Therefore it may be rather obviously concluded that eliminating religion and having everybody become atheist will NOT instantly have everybody singing 'Imagine" and entering a utopian paradise of naturally moral people.

Yes, the 'golden rule' is a very practical and simple moral/ethical standard to live by.

What's ironic about that? Except when it is used by atheists as a non-religious ethical standard...and claimed as having somehow been invented by non-theists.

Of course the Golden Rule or the Ethic of Reciprocity wasn't "invented" by non-theists. It simply evolved. Even a vampire bat will share its food with a starving or sick roost mate simply because the behaviour was selected for by evolution since it enhances the chances of survival for the colony and the individual bat. You really have to read some of the good books on the evolution of morality available.

And RELIGION gave it to us.

Of course not. The opposite. People incorporated it into their religions because it's such a basic evolved moral code that practically everybody agree it's good to follow it no matter what else they might believe religionwise.

Really?

Prove it. Every single incident and reference that we have to the Golden Rule, in any of its many iterations, have come from a religious source, religious writings, or from a spiritual leader.

But you are quite certain of your claim, I see. Please show us where the Golden Rule existed before, and apart from, any use it had in a religion.

G'head.

Prove that a vampire bat when it acts according to the Golden Rule and Ethic of Reciprocity didn't get it from a god or a religious or spiritual leader?

That's not how this works. Second challenge: humans are not vampire bats. Prove that the golden rule existed before, and apart from, any use it had in a religion.

"of course not, it just evolved' is not proof.

[Artie]

There should have been at least one in which the atheistic philosophy adopted by the powers that be mitigated against killing people by the job lots.

But there wasn't one.

Of course not. There is no "atheistic philosophy". There is no "atheistic philosophy". There is no "atheistic philosophy". The only thing all atheists have in common is that they are not theists. There is no "atheistic philosophy".

"A person's philosophy is their "system of principles for guidance in practical affairs." Like ideology, a philosophy comprises of two key elements: it must be a group of beliefs and it must provide guidance. Atheism is not a philosophy for the same reason that it is not an ideology: it's not even a single belief, much less a system of interconnected beliefs, and by itself atheism does not guide anyone anywhere."
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitiono ... ligion.htm

I find it immensely hypocritical by a theist to criticise atheists when their own god commits genocide and drowns practically all humans and a lot of the animals on the planet. Unfortunately, people like Hitler and Stalin and others did adopt the "philosophy" from the God of the Bible that genocide is a good way of dealing with unwanted people.

Second challenge: humans are not vampire bats. Prove that the golden rule existed before, and apart from, any use it had in a religion.

"of course not, it just evolved' is not proof.

LOL! We know that vampire bats share food with starving roost mates. That is the Golden Rule in action. The Ethic of Reciprocity.

"Vampire bats also demonstrate a sense of reciprocity and altruism. They share blood by regurgitation, but do not share randomly. They are most likely to share with other bats who have shared with them in the past or who are in dire need of feeding."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
Now it's up to you to show that the bats got the Golden Rule behaviour from their religion.

[dianaiad]

There should have been at least one in which the atheistic philosophy adopted by the powers that be mitigated against killing people by the job lots.

But there wasn't one.

Of course not. There is no "atheistic philosophy". There is no "atheistic philosophy". There is no "atheistic philosophy". The only thing all atheists have in common is that they are not theists. There is no "atheistic philosophy".

The logical fallacies are just piling up here. You are committing a fallacy of composition.

See if you can figure out what it is, when I say that there is no theistic philosophy. There is no 'theistic philosophy.' There is no 'theistic philosophy.' The only thing all theists have in common is that they are not atheists.

"A person's philosophy is their "system of principles for guidance in practical affairs." Like ideology, a philosophy comprises of two key elements: it must be a group of beliefs and it must provide guidance. Atheism is not a philosophy for the same reason that it is not an ideology: it's not even a single belief, much less a system of interconnected beliefs, and by itself atheism does not guide anyone anywhere."
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitiono ... ligion.htm

OK, with EXACTLY the same logic, I can say that "theism is not a philosophy for the same reason that it is not an ideology; it's not even a single belief, much less a system of interconnected beliefs, and by itself theism does not guide anyone anywhere."

Are you getting the picture yet?

I find it immensely hypocritical by a theist to criticise atheists when their own god commits genocide and drowns practically all humans and a lot of the animals on the planet. Unfortunately, people like Hitler and Stalin and others did adopt the "philosophy" from the God of the Bible that genocide is a good way of dealing with unwanted people.

Second challenge: humans are not vampire bats. Prove that the golden rule existed before, and apart from, any use it had in a religion.

"of course not, it just evolved' is not proof.

LOL! We know that vampire bats share food with starving roost mates. That is the Golden Rule in action. The Ethic of Reciprocity.

"Vampire bats also demonstrate a sense of reciprocity and altruism. They share blood by regurgitation, but do not share randomly. They are most likely to share with other bats who have shared with them in the past or who are in dire need of feeding."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
Now it's up to you to show that the bats got the Golden Rule behaviour from their religion.

Third challenge.

Prove that the golden rule existed before, and apart from any use it had in a religion.

Speculation regarding its purpose and origin, especially when that speculation utterly depends upon an already arrived upon belief that there is no God and religion had nothing to do with it, is not proof.

What you have done here is, having decided that religion had nothing at all to do with the golden rule, attempted to explain how else it could have arrived in human culture.

Which, of course, is nice...but speculation is not proof. Your claim was that 'it evolved,' and that religion had nothing to do with it. The problem is, in order to prove that, you must show me some specific proof that there is mention of it, AS A PHILOSOPHY AND RULE OF CONDUCT, apart from, and before, any religion.

So here is your third challenge. Prove it or retract your claim. You may, of course, do so by saying that it is your opinion only. You may present arguments (as you have with the vampire bats) for its possibility, but you made your claim as fact, and facts need proof.

Provide it, please.

[Artie]

OK, with EXACTLY the same logic, I can say that "theism is not a philosophy for the same reason that it is not an ideology; it's not even a single belief, much less a system of interconnected beliefs, and by itself theism does not guide anyone anywhere." Are you getting the picture yet?

Well of course theism isn't a philosophy... what's your point?

Third challenge.

Prove that the golden rule existed before, and apart from any use it had in a religion.

The Golden Rule describes in words the Ethic of Reciprocity. Vampire bats act according to the Golden Rule/the Ethic of Reciprocity. They don't have any religion as far as I know. Are you trying to say that vampire bats didn't behave according to the Ethic of Reciprocity until humans described the principle in words and used the words in a religion?

[instantc]

Vampire bats act according to the Golden Rule/the Ethic of Reciprocity.

For one to act morally good, I think, it is necessary that one recognizes a certain course of action as the right thing to do and then chooses to take that action. Merely exhibiting certain behavior doesn't necessarily have anything to do with morality. Otherwise I could build a morally good robot.

I don't know whether bats recognize something as the morally right thing to do, but I doubt it. More likely they are simply acting out of an instinct.

Furthermore, just because certain animals act in a manner that is consistent with a rule, it does not follow that therefore that rule exists. For example, just because certain dinosaurs did not intervene with each others territories, it does not follow that the prohibition of transnational violence and the principle of territorial sovereignty already existed back then. Those animals simply weren't interested in intruding in each other's territories.

[dianaiad]

OK, with EXACTLY the same logic, I can say that "theism is not a philosophy for the same reason that it is not an ideology; it's not even a single belief, much less a system of interconnected beliefs, and by itself theism does not guide anyone anywhere." Are you getting the picture yet?

Well of course theism isn't a philosophy... what's your point?

The point is that I was not referring to 'atheism as a whole.' I referred to 'atheistic philosophies,' 'atheism as a whole," and that 'getting rid of religion (which would be anti-theism) doesn't solve problems or make people all of a sudden more moral and wonderful. You are the one attempting to equate atheism with the philosophies that are contained within it. That is what a fallacy of composition is all about; claiming that if the entirety of a set doesn't have a property, then no subset of it can have that property.

What you are doing is the same thing as me saying that because Quakers, one of the most pacifistic religions there is, is not out to murder people, then no religion is 'out to murder people.' Now I know that you would not let me get away with that; why do you think you can get away with claiming that because not all atheistic philosophies are murderous and exclusionary, that 'atheism' isn't...and therefore anti-theists (who must be atheists by definition) can't be?

Third challenge.

Prove that the golden rule existed before, and apart from any use it had in a religion.

The Golden Rule describes in words the Ethic of Reciprocity. Vampire bats act according to the Golden Rule/the Ethic of Reciprocity. They don't have any religion as far as I know. Are you trying to say that vampire bats didn't behave according to the Ethic of Reciprocity until humans described the principle in words and used the words in a religion?

You are dodging. Whether deliberately or not, I don't know, but, and I repeat, humans are not vampire bats. Humans put their philosophies and ideas INTO WORDS. They examine things.

The Golden Rule is a much examined 'rule,' and we've had it for thousands of years, expressed in many different cultures.

We can see, from the study of feral children and from some rather dysfunctional cultures, that the "ethic of reciprocity" isn't exactly hardwired into our brains, like breathing, nursing and even, perhaps, walking is.

So, for the final time, prove that the golden rule (or 'ethic of reciprocity') has been written/described...or even practiced...by any human culture apart from, or before, a religion.

This is the last time I'll ask you, and frankly, three chances is all that are normally given. I give you a fourth simply and only because it is possible that you are not deliberately misconstruing both your claim and my demand for proof.