Justify the belief that gods do not exist.

[wiploc]

Some people believe that gods do not exist. (One can call this position "atheism" or "strong atheism" or "anti-theist perversion," anything you want. But we aren't going to argue terminology in this thread. Clarity is good, so you can explain what you personally mean by "atheist," but you shouldn't suggest that other usages are inferior.)

This thread is to make a list of arguments, of reasons to believe that theism is false.

And we can discuss the soundness of those arguments.

I'll start:

1. The Parable of the Pawnbroker.
(I'll just post titles here, so as not to take too much space at the top of each thread.)

2. Presumptive Falsity of Outrageous Claims.



Feel free to add to this list.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 709 by otseng]

If you rehabilitate the rapists, everyone can be content at once.

[dianaiad]

Third challenge.

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

For me this is unimportant for the following reasons.

1. It wouldn't matter where the golden rule originated from it is still a clearly logical and rational concept that follows naturally from a purely secular rationale.

2. It certainty predated Christianity. The golden rule was expressed by Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Confucius to be sure. And I do believe that Confucianism was indeed a secular philosophy.

It is important for two reasons:

1. This thread is about justifying a belief that gods do not exist. The existence of the golden rule is here being used as just such a justification; that it is an 'evolved,' hardwired behavior, and has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs. Challenging that the claimant prove this is, therefore, of great importance.

2. The claim was made. It has been challenged, not three, but four times, and the claimant has been unable, or unwilling,to back it up with precisely the sort of evidence that atheists/non-believers require of theists before any claim regarding deity may be made. Double standards annoy me.

..................oh, and just as an addendum, no claim was made that the golden rule was a specifically Christian idea. Quite the contrary, I made it quite clear that it had appeared in many different religious belief systems.

BTW, Confucianism began about 500 years before Christ, and did indeed contain the 'golden rule.' However, inasmuch as it taught ancestor worship, it's certainly as much a religion as Buddhism, even though neither one emphasized a deity. The problem, of course, is that nobody has ever said that atheistic belief systems could not, and do not, incorporate it. The claim was that the golden rule had nothing to do with religion, that it 'evolved,' and that, basically, it came from 'atheists' or non-theists.

I challenged him to prove that the golden rule has been found in any culture before, and apart from, any religion. That means that y'all are going to have to prove that non-theist cultures had, codified in their ethical systems, some form of the golden rule BEFORE the earliest mention we have of it in a religious sense, and entirely apart from it; that we got our recognition of the idea from non-religious sources.

I do believe that the ancient Egyptian concept of Maat predates Confucius...by about a thousand years, even if you could call Confucianism 'secular..' and I don't think you can.

So, do you want to take this one on?

Without building strawmen to attack? I have not claimed the golden rule to be exclusive to Christianity. Why are you arguing as if I had?

[dianaiad]

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.

It's not a replacement for 'Christianity' that is required. What is required is a replacement for the ethical and moral standards that Christians hold to, and which they would abandon if they 'leave Christianity."

What will they use instead, since it seems that you think that Christian standards of behavior are so...what would be the most descriptive word to encompass the myriad insults you have been throwing at Christians for the last little while...I'll just use 'horrifically immoral," since that seems to sum it up.

What SHOULD Christians use instead of 'thou shalt not kill,' 'thou shalt not..." or rather 'love thy neighbor as thyself?"

I mean, you don't seem to think that this is sufficient.

What should we do instead?

[spiritualrevolution]

What SHOULD Christians use instead of 'thou shalt not kill,' 'thou shalt not..." or rather 'love thy neighbor as thyself?"

I mean, you don't seem to think that this is sufficient.

What should we do instead?

Lol that is funny. what should we do.

You can use your brain and think for yourself!


For example. You may suddenly have a desire to kill someone.

You can think about if it's within a person's right to kill people.

If so, you can think about for what purpose it is within a person's right. Just your's? Or everybody's? Or only some people's? If so, why? Is it fair, the way these rights are distributed?

Are there no conditions at all, or are there some conditions which gives a person the right to kill another?

What conditions are they? How does it change your view on whether it's okay to kill another person?

There are infinite variations and more questions to ask yourself, and I assure you, the reason god probably doesn't exist is cause even if god/gods existed, they can't help you answer these questions, cause they never directly answer any of your questions.

I can also assure you the christian religion doesn't provide any more clearcut answers than any other religion, nor does any other religion.

And it's a good question to ask yourself. Why should we humans be allowed to get close to any answers? What would the outcome be, and why would it be desirable?

[Artie]

The claim was that the golden rule had nothing to do with religion, that it 'evolved,'

That the behaviour the Golden Rule advocates evolved

and that, basically, it came from 'atheists' or non-theists.

And I proved it by showing that vampire bats live according to the Golden Rule and unless you claim they are religious and theists I did what you asked. Get over it.

I challenged him to prove that the golden rule has been found in any culture before, and apart from, any religion. That means that y'all are going to have to prove that non-theist cultures had, codified in their ethical systems, some form of the golden rule BEFORE the earliest mention we have of it in a religious sense, and entirely apart from it; that we got our recognition of the idea from non-religious sources.

LOL. You are actually claiming that only religious people could figure out that if you help others they'll help you and that's good for everybody when even vampire bats do it instinctively. Do you think all non-religious people are morons?

[Divine Insight]

It is important for two reasons:

1. This thread is about justifying a belief that gods do not exist. The existence of the golden rule is here being used as just such a justification; that it is an 'evolved,' hardwired behavior, and has nothing to do with religion or religious beliefs. Challenging that the claimant prove this is, therefore, of great importance.

2. The claim was made. It has been challenged, not three, but four times, and the claimant has been unable, or unwilling,to back it up with precisely the sort of evidence that atheists/non-believers require of theists before any claim regarding deity may be made. Double standards annoy me.

What needs to be proved? I think the fact that the golden rule is basically accepted by everyone as being "obviously desirable and practical" is proof enough that it is indeed, "obviously desirable and practical".

So what more needs to be proved?

This would be the case for any sentient species. It's an automatic tautology.

What kind of conscious self-aware social species would think that hurting each other is a GOOD idea?

I mean, come on. This is the most simple basic common sense. It would naturally arise in a purely secular reality. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suggest that because the concept of the "Golden Rule" makes obvious sense that this implies any sort of objective morality or a need for a God.

It stems from a very natural secular truth. Pleasure is more desirable to biological creature than is pain. Period.

That is the source of the Golden Rule, especially in any species that is naturally social, which clearly humans are. There is nothing more to it than this.

And that is all the "Proof" that should be required that it doesn't require religion to recognize this simple basic concept.

If you don't like to be hit on the head with a hammer, why would you justify going around hitting other people on the head with a hammer?

That is basically the foundation of the Golden Rule. It's nothing more than common sense. Period. It really doesn't even have anything to do with "morality" other than we have invented a concept called "morality" that we define as having to do with the way we might treat each other. And for this reason we naturally shove the Golden Rule, under the umbrella of "morality". But it wasn't actually born out of morality. It's just common sense.

And as far as I'm concerned that is proof positive that it doesn't rely on religion or the concept of morality at all.

If you don't want to be hit on the head with a hammer then don't go around hitting other people on the head with a hammer. Pretty simple concept. And it doesn't even require a sense of morality to understand it.

[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.

It's not a replacement for 'Christianity' that is required. What is required is a replacement for the ethical and moral standards that Christians hold to, and which they would abandon if they 'leave Christianity."

What will they use instead, since it seems that you think that Christian standards of behavior are so...what would be the most descriptive word to encompass the myriad insults you have been throwing at Christians for the last little while...I'll just use 'horrifically immoral," since that seems to sum it up.

But you have just confirmed my claims just now when you said the following words:

"What is required is a replacement for the ethical and moral standards that Christians hold to, and which they would abandon if they 'leave Christianity'."

You have just made a claim that confirms my suspicion that many Christians are indeed innately immoral people. After all, if they would "abandon morality" if they leave Christianity, then clearly they have no sense of morality of their own.

What SHOULD Christians use instead of 'thou shalt not kill,' 'thou shalt not..." or rather 'love thy neighbor as thyself?"

If you discovered that Christianity is false would you then start killing people, stealing, lying, molesting children, and committing all manner of horrific acts?

If so, then you would have just proven me correct. You would have proven that you have no sense of morality at all, and that you are fundamentally an immoral person who is only trying to be moral to appease a God for whatever reason.

I mean, you don't seem to think that this is sufficient.

What should we do instead?

The mere fact that you need to ask this question appears to me to prove my case.

I'm not a Christian. I don't go around murdering people, stealing, lying, and participating in all manner of horrific acts.

In fact, just tonight I stepped on a large frog in my front yard walking to my house from my car. It was dark and I didn't see the poor thing. I think I hurt it pretty bad. I felt really bad about having stepped on this poor little innocent frog. In fact, I went back out with a flash light and picked it up and carried it back over to the pond in case it was having trouble getting back on it's own.

But I mean, gee whiz, here I am worried about having stepped on a frog by accident. I'm certainly not about to go out and hurt humans on purpose.

I don't follow the Ten Commandments just because the Bible claims that some God demands it. In fact, insofar as I'm aware the Bible doesn't say anything about not stepping on frogs. So why should I feel bad about having stepped on a frog?

You're actually suggesting that "non-Christians" have no reason to be compassionate people. That's ridiculous.

~~~~

I confess that I personally feel that there is something mystical going on with reality. But that's not why I am a compassionate person. I would be just as compassionate if the secular atheists were able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there could not be any unknown mysteries in the universe.

I'm not a compassionate person because I tend to believe in a mystical reality.

On the contrary, I probably believe in a mystical reality because I have a deeply romantic side which is at least in-part responsible for my compassion as well. I mean caring about the pain and suffering of a frog is no doubt a "romantic notion".

But when you suggest that Christian would have no moral guidance if they didn't have Christianity, tells me that these Christians must be extremely immoral people at their core. How could they not be compassionate caring people just because a religion turns out to be false?

Where is there any connection between compassion and religion?

I don't need to believe in a God to care about the pain and suffering of a frog.

And I surely don't need to believe in a God to care about the pain and suffering of another human. In fact, I often look at people thinking that we are indeed nothing other than hairless Great Apes. And ironically that almost makes me feel more compassion for them.

~~~~~~

Here is something I would like to share with you Dianaiad. I watch these air crash investigations quite often because I'm amazed at how they ultimately discovered what caused planes to crash. In this particular episode the problem was a suicidal man who was planning on killing himself along with the rest of the crew on the airplane. It's a truly horrific and bloody episode so if that sort of thing bothers you maybe you shouldn't watch it.

But here's the question. How would you feel about the man who committed this crime? I don't know how you would feel about him, but I feel extreme sorry for this guy. That certainly doesn't condone the horrific damage he did to the other crew members. But still, I feel sorry that this guy actually thought his plan was the only way to move forward in life even though it would have ultimately meant his own death. What he tried to do was of course extremely 'immoral' by anyone's standard I hope. But even so, the fact that he actually felt that he had to do something this horrible is truly sad.

[youtube][/youtube]

As a Christian, would you have compassion for this criminal?

If you weren't a Christian would your feelings be different?

If you'd have the same feelings either way then what does Christianity have to do with your feelings of morality or compassion?

[instantc]

What else is there? If you think rape is wrong, and you don't think that its increasing unhappiness is what's wrong with it, then what is there about rape that makes it wrong?

I have two question for you.

(1) If rape made, say, ten men so happy that the overall happiness was increasing, would it not be wrong?

(2) If the rape victim was so passed out and she would for certainty not remember anything of it, and thus the rape would not increase anyone's unhappiness, would it not be wrong?

[KenRU]

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?

Ok, my apologies. I was simply trying to say that there was no consensus (as far as science can “know� anything) and given that, we cannot rule out the concept of the universe not having a beginning (at least not in the way you are suggesting is necessary).

And, while scientists may not have a consensus (or answers) on how (if at all) the universe began, that doesn’t mean any explanation is given the same credence. A sentient Creator should be given the same credence as hyper-dimensional aliens – that is to say both have zero supporting evidence.

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.

And how would that not be a god of the gaps argument?

[KenRU]

Y'know, the last few posts have made my case for me better than anything I could possibly say.

Most of you claim that morality is innate/genetic/....something that 'just appears' from the aether. There's no source. It's a magical occurance that people will be moral....

Humans are by nature social animals. The more a group works together, the more successful they are (the most reproduce). If you’re looking for a cause for why humans can be kind to one another without a learned cause – there it is. Evidence of this is abundant in nature. Social creatures tend to thrive (in quantities) much more so then non-social creatures.

.....unless of course they are theists and then they are innately immoral and need guidelines and standards to live by so that they will know what 'moral' is.

I never claimed this. But I do claim that many theists claim this.

A bunch of people who have been challenged (as per the topic) to justify a belief that gods do not exist.

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 have provided evidence that you required at least twice now, and you have yet to respond.

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.

I don’t claim this. However, I do equate it to addition by subtraction. Removing a negative is a good thing.

Indeed, history has shown us that when religion is outlawed, the atheistic belief systems that take its place have been, without exception, very, very immoral, nasty and murderous indeed.

No, it has shown that oppressive governments that adopt an anti-theist/atheist position remain oppressive governments.

Much like oppressive dictatorships that adopt theistic positions remain oppressive dictatorships. Why make your distinction?