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.

[Artie]

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 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?

Moral people use logic, reason, common sense, their empathy, altruism, compassion, conscience, respect for others, self-respect, love, their feeling of duty, obligation, responsibility, the laws, the Golden Rule, their sense of justice, their knowledge and experience and education etc etc to determine the moral course of action. They don't need anybody to tell them "thou shalt not kill" because they are moral people.

So how do we cope with immoral people or "lost sheep"? We give them the most impressive authority figure we can invent, an omnipotent omniscient god, and we tell them this god has inspired a book in which he commands these people to follow moral guidelines like in the Ten Commandments and a religious authority figure called Jesus citing the Golden Rule telling the "lost sheep" to live according to it. We gather the "lost sheep" in herds/congregations and give them "shepherds". We give them an incentive by playing on their survival instinct promising them eternal life if they play nice. And instead of all these immoral people ending up in jail or worse we have made them useful members of society. As long as Christianity or religion in general fulfils this function it serves its purpose.

[dianaiad]

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!

Really.

Using what frame of reference? Humans are social critters. Without socialization, we become...well, we don't become able to be free thinking beings who can assess the world around us and make our own decisions about moral issues.

One can only 'think for oneself' if there are available ideas to consider, words and concepts with which to analyze what the problem is, and some idea of a 'greater good,' that is, 'killing this person would make me feel good right now, but what about the future?" sort of thing.

In order to think for oneself, in other words, there has to be some preparation for doing that. Education, a base from which to think, and the ability to express those thoughts, even if only to oneself.

These things do not occur in a vacuum.

I know, I know...many of the atheists, non-theists and so called 'free thinkers' want to believe (and how ironic is this, anyway) that the human brain just magically comes up with all these moral constructs without any external influence, but...

...as we can see from the cases of feral children, without that external influence, we do not thrive. We are not able to exist above the 'next meal' phase of future planning, and we don't do THAT very well.

[dianaiad]

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 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?

Moral people use logic, reason, common sense, their empathy, altruism, compassion, conscience, respect for others, self-respect, love, their feeling of duty, obligation, responsibility, the laws, the Golden Rule, their sense of justice, their knowledge and experience and education etc etc to determine the moral course of action. They don't need anybody to tell them "thou shalt not kill" because they are moral people.

....and WHERE did they get their morality, Artie? THINK about this. Hard. WHERE did you learn about logic, reason, and even 'common sense?"

I promise you, it wasn't delivered to you on the instant of your birth on the wings of angels or with a bolt of lightning.

[Artie]

....and WHERE did they get their morality, Artie?

Evolution. Same process that gave the vampire bat the instinct to share food with starving roost mates. Unless you think a god physically created the vampire bat with a brain pre-wired with the instinct to share food? Do you? Yes or no?

[dianaiad]

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?

Artie, since I am a participant in this thread, I'll just tell you, AS a participant in this thread, that telling someone to 'get over it.' is uncivil.

Now, as I have already told you, humans are not vampire bats. Humans are not ants, either...nor are they lions, whose males will kill the cubs of females so that those females will go into heat and bear the killer's offspring, instead. So, by the way, do vampire bats, in whose society the cubs use instinctive appeasement gestures to avoid aggressive and harmful behavior.

I don't know of any human child in whom such an appeasing gesture is hardwired into his or her makeup. Unless it's a smile...but come to think of it, even smiles are learned behaviors.

We are not wolves, who live in packs where only the alpha pair is allowed to reproduce, but who are really invested in everybody caring for the pups...to a point.

We are not hippos, where the males there will kill any young they find, out of sheer bloody mindedness.

We are not chimpanzees, or mountain gorillas--though we do share many of the same social behaviors. We have very long childhoods, because we must be TAUGHT how to deal with the world.

You did not claim that vampire bats will help other vampire bats. Your claim was that HUMANS got the golden rule because it 'evolved' in US, not in bats. In order to prove that, you have to show how, IN HUMANS, the golden rule became codified before, and apart from, any religion.

Humans are similar in many ways to the other animals that inhabit our planet, but we are very, very different in one important way. Almost ALL of our social skills, and indeed, pretty much every other survival skill, is learned...and that includes 'reciprocity.'

Your claim is that this is somehow hardwired: 'evolved."

You need to prove that. For one thing, if it were true, then all humans would abide by the golden rule, the way we all breathe.

However, we certainly do not.

So, no, you have proven nothing.

[Artie]

Your claim is that this is somehow hardwired: 'evolved."

To settle this once and for all:

"the vampire bats have developed the instinct to share blood by regurgitating it. This is commonly referred to as reciprocal altruism"
http://www.life.umd.edu/faculty/wilkins ... Nieves.htm
When people share food with the starving we call it moral behaviour.

Why do the bats have this instinct:

1. It evolved.
2. A god personally assembled the bat with its brains pre-programmed with this instinct.

Can you also please explain why reciprocity in a vampire bat is instinctive but must be learned by a human?

[dianaiad]

....and WHERE did they get their morality, Artie?

Evolution. Same process that gave the vampire bat the instinct to share food with starving roost mates. Unless you think a god physically created the vampire bat with a brain pre-wired with the instinct to share food? Do you? Yes or no?

Artie, you are attempting to twist out of your responsibilities here, but just to stop this one: yes, I do believe that God created the vampire bat with the instinct to share food. (though it's more a 'payment for service,' being, as I have discovered, a response to grooming).

I happen to believe that evolution is how He did it.

But what makes you think that because a vampire bat will vomit up her blood meal to share with the other bat that groomed her well, that HUMANS are hardwired for the golden rule?

There are many other species on this planet that won't share their food, and will, indeed, throw an injured or ill member out of the group. There are human groups that follow that method, as well, so....

Why aren't you comparing humans to them? That is an instinctual, and actually rather practical, approach, as well.

Again, you have failed to meet the burden of proof for your claim.

[Artie]

yes, I do believe that God created the vampire bat with the instinct to share food ... I happen to believe that evolution is how He did it.

OK.

But what makes you think that because a vampire bat will vomit up her blood meal to share with the other bat that groomed her well, that HUMANS are hardwired for the golden rule?

Because humans are social animals living in communities just like the bats and since humans benefit from the same behaviour evolution selected for the same instinct.

There are many other species on this planet that won't share their food, and will, indeed, throw an injured or ill member out of the group.

Because that is the evolved instinctive behaviour that benefits that species.

There are human groups that follow that method, as well, so....

If that behaviour benefits those groups they will continue. If it doesn't benefit those groups they will die out and natural selection will have removed that behaviour.

[Wordleymaster1]

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.

Other than the reason the thread was made, I wonder why someone has to justify anything they believe if it's only because 'I believe'?
If they're trying to prove something fine. But it seems it's nothing more than arguing for the sake of arguing here.

[spiritualrevolution]

In order to think for oneself, in other words, there has to be some preparation for doing that. Education, a base from which to think, and the ability to express those thoughts, even if only to oneself.

These things do not occur in a vacuum.

I know, I know...many of the atheists, non-theists and so called 'free thinkers' want to believe (and how ironic is this, anyway) that the human brain just magically comes up with all these moral constructs without any external influence, but...

first of all, its perfectly possible in a social construct to come up with a belief system of morals WITHOUT christianity / god.

second, its clear to me that since the bible didnt always exist, and neither did christianity, at some point the ancient hunter gatherers must have developed social convention from trial amd error.

at first, these conventions were passes along through monkey see monkey do, and when monkey do's result was not so good the other smarter monkey did things differently.