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]

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.

I agree completely. And I hold that this problem actually lies within the Abrahamic religions. The Bible teaches people to believe things like the following:

From the Old Testament:

Psalms.14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

This is telling those who believe in the Bible that those who do not believe in God (and really the Biblical God specifically) are necessarily corrupt, have done abominable works, and there is none one that doeth good.

This type of religious propaganda causes the believers in this religion to believe, (and basically accuse) all non-believers of refusing to accept God. They cannot allow that there are rational or just reasons to disbelieve because that would basically violate the very dogma that they believe in themselves.

Because of this, when "Debating Christianity" the Christian theists typically hold that there is no rational justification for not believing in the biblical God. If a person doesn't believe they must necessarily be an evil person just as the Bible proclaims.

This same type of religious propaganda is reinforced in the New Testament several times over.

John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John.14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

People who believe in Christianity are pretty much stuck with having to support this kind of religious propaganda. And their logic necessary follows that if someone is rejecting Jesus and God, then they must be evil and doing this on purpose, because if they were innocent then their God would be condemning innocent people for merely not believing in him.

~~~~~

So this is the origin of why when debating Christianity proof is demanded by the Christians themselves that a disbelieve in God be justified. Which they believe is impossible to justify. If you refuse to believe in the Biblical God you must be a corrupt evil person just as the Bible demands.

To make matters far worse, the Christians don't only demand that a person justify not believing in the Biblical God, but they actually make it impossible by demanding that a person justify not believing in any possible concept of God.

The Christians WANT this to be impossible. They want the Biblical propaganda and accusations against atheists to be TRUE. They want to see the atheists down on their knees begging Jesus and God for forgiveness for their corrupt immoral refusal to believe in a God that many Christians claim the atheists actually "know" exists.

In fact, Paul was really big on this. Paul preached that "There is no excuse for not believing in God".

Romans 1
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[19] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Once again, more religious propaganda direct from the Bible proclaiming that anyone who refuses to believe in the Biblical God is "Without Excuse".

Therefore if you claim to not believe in the Biblical God you had better make a very crystal clear undeniable reason why you sincerely don't believe. Otherwise, you're clearly just a corrupt heathen who hates the God you know exists. This is what the Christians (or at least the authors of the Bible) are demanding.

Of course it's not just Christianity, Islam certainly does the very same thing they have simply swapped Jesus in for Muhammad, but it's the same underhanded religious propaganda scheme.

This is why when debating with Christians, the Christians demand proof from non-believers that "no Gods can exist" (they won't even settle for just a proof that the Biblical God can't exist). They don't want this to be a potentially possible challenge. They want it to be impossible. They want to be able to say, "You can't do it, and therefore the Bible and Paul are right, you are indeed without excuse!"

Of course all secularists know that this is total baloney. But I'm just pointing out where it comes from. And it's not even unique to Christianity. Islam does the same thing. For some reason the Jews tend to be in total denial of their own dogma and don't hold these things up as being necessarily true. I guess the Jews are willing to believe that a lot of their religious dogma is untrustworthy. I'm not sure exactly what's going on there. But Christianity and Islam are both quite fanatical about demanding that "unbelievers" are without excuse.

So that is where this demand that non-beliefs be "proven".

As far as a belief in either Christianity or Islam is concerned there is no proof needed because the Christians will just point to Paul's words, and say, "See! Paul knows that the mere fact that anything exists at all is proof of the existence of God and he must know what he's talking about because he's a saint in our bible!"

That's where it comes from. Not just Paul, but the whole biblical rhetoric.

And then of course, the atheists turn this right back on the Christians demanding that they then prove their beliefs. The atheists reject Paul's claim that just because a universe exists it automatically follows. Paul was a complete idiot if he believed that. That's definitely not a logically sound conclusion for sure. Paul was not very good at logic at all.

But the Christians accept Paul's claims along with the claims of the Psalms and the New Testament rumors about Jesus.

So that's where it all comes from right there.

If it wasn't for these religions that demand that we believe in their God lest we must be corrupt evil people, we wouldn't be having these kind of silly arguments over whether or not it's rational to believe or disbelieve in gods.

Some people would believe and others would not, but they wouldn't be at odds with each other if it wasn't for these religions that demand that non-believer are evil heretics who are knowingly rejecting God and choosing evil over good.

That's the source right there.

The Abrahamic religions are the SOURCE of this nonsense.

[Zzyzx]

.
Just one point:

This is why when debating with Christians, the Christians demand proof from non-believers that "no Gods can exist" (they won't even settle for just a proof that the Biblical God can't exist). They don't want this to be a potentially possible challenge. They want it to be impossible. They want to be able to say, "You can't do it, and therefore the Bible and Paul are right, you are indeed without excuse!"

Theists / Christians / Bible Believers may THINK they have presented convincing arguments for their religious dogma / beliefs; however, the test becomes whether they have convinced READERS of the "wisdom" of their pontifications / platitudes / pronouncements.

In these debates and the feedback I receive in personal communication, it does not seem as though theistic viewpoints have been presented convincingly.

[dianaiad]

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.

IS it?

Now that's begging the question big time, don't you think?

I mean, if there is no god, you are most certainly correct. However, if there is one, how the heck would you know?

Now, true, there are societies that 'come up with' ethical and moral systems that don't include a deity, but....where did those folks get their ideas? I'm not claiming that ethical systems that don't include a deity can't be perfectly moral/ethical/good systems. I AM saying that they aren't a very good justification for the non-existence of God, because they BEGIN by assuming that God does not exist; they don't prove that He doesn't.

Again, where did all those ethical ideas come from?

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.

Since when does 'theism' and 'religion' begin and end with the bible and Christianity? I certainly never claimed this.

.....and again, you are assuming the consequent here. Your conclusions all depend upon there not being a deity, not any sort of reason for justifying disbelief in Him.

Here: I just saw my very black cat get picked up and hauled across the street by a neighbor kid. Smoky (I didn't name him; he's only 'smoky' if you think that smoke is the color of a tree shadow at midnight on a night without a moon) was then on the other side of the street.

Now it is quite possible for him to have crossed the street on his own. He's done it before, and it's not unusual. The lady across the way gives him treats, blast it, and if that neighbor kid had not existed, that's how he would have HAD to have crossed the street.

However, if I hadn't seen the kid pick up my cat and seen Smoky on the other side of the street, how does my understanding that he could have walked there proved that he did walk there, and more to the point, DISPROVED any idea that someone had picked him up and put him there?

In other words, understanding that, without God, morality 'must have evolved' does not disprove the idea that God (or at least, religion) didn't have a hand in it.

.....and that's what you have to do, according to the topic of this thread. Simply speculating about how things came to be if God did not exist is NOT the same thing as justifying a belief that gods do not exist, any more than figuring that Smokey walked across the street on his own four feet does not disprove the existence of the kid who picked him up and hauled him across.

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.

That's a learned behavior you are describing, not instinct. You need to figure out the difference here.

[dianaiad]

.
Just one point:

This is why when debating with Christians, the Christians demand proof from non-believers that "no Gods can exist" (they won't even settle for just a proof that the Biblical God can't exist). They don't want this to be a potentially possible challenge. They want it to be impossible. They want to be able to say, "You can't do it, and therefore the Bible and Paul are right, you are indeed without excuse!"

Theists / Christians / Bible Believers may THINK they have presented convincing arguments for their religious dogma / beliefs; however, the test becomes whether they have convinced READERS of the "wisdom" of their pontifications / platitudes / pronouncements.

In these debates and the feedback I receive in personal communication, it does not seem as though theistic viewpoints have been presented convincingly.

This might be sufficient as a response to those who try to prove that gods exist.

However, it's not sufficient to prove that they do not.

[Zzyzx]

.

This might be sufficient as a response to those who try to prove that gods exist.

As always in debate, I encourage those who promote, encourage or defend worship of invisible, undetectable supernatural gods to present to readers sound, convincing reason that they should worship some favorite or currently popular god.

However, it's not sufficient to prove that they do not.

There is no reason that anyone should attempt to prove non-existence of gods, leprechauns, fairies, fire-breathing dragons, etc. Instead, it is prudent to allow promoters of those entities to present their case for readers to consider.

This thread alone has 13,000 views. I say, "let readers decide what makes sense."

[dianaiad]

.

This might be sufficient as a response to those who try to prove that gods exist.

As always in debate, I encourage those who promote, encourage or defend worship of invisible, undetectable supernatural gods to present to readers sound, convincing reason that they should worship some favorite or currently popular god.

However, it's not sufficient to prove that they do not.

There is no reason that anyone should attempt to prove non-existence of gods, leprechauns, fairies, fire-breathing dragons, etc. Instead, it is prudent to allow promoters of those entities to present their case for readers to consider.

This thread alone has 13,000 views. I say, "let readers decide what makes sense."

Ah, but Zzyxx...THIS thread, of all others on this forum, was begun for just this purpose:

To prove that gods do not exist.

Because, although many atheists say "we see no evidence that proves to us that there is a deity" (an entirely understandable and logical stand), but rather "there is no such thing as a god,' or 'there are no gods.'

It is those who make that 'there are no gods, period' to which this thread is addressed. At least, I think it is.

Yes, it's gone haring off into some very different directions, but basically the purpose is...

the ball is in the court of the atheist. I'm a theist. I'm not making any claims here. Atheist...prove to me that there are no gods.

Not simply 'I don't believe in one," but "there aren't any."

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 736 by dianaiad]

Parsimony is a good justification for the belief that gods do not exist.
For exactly the same reason that we're justified in believing that random people we encounter on the street aren't alien clones, or in believing that parts of the world that we can't see don't cease to exist and reappear.

Additionally, the vagueness of terms used by theists with regards to their own belief means it is wrong to assume that they're actually proposing anything.

[spiritualrevolution]

[Replying to dianaiad]

spiritualrevolution wrote:
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.


That's a learned behavior you are describing, not instinct. You need to figure out the difference here.

Even if it's 100% learned behavior, and say, not a combination of instinct and learning, in no way does god or religion come into play.


Also, it was you that claimed that its not possible for morals to exist without god, and I only tried to show you how morals can exist without god.


And if you admit that there was a time before christianity and a time before the bible, then there must have been also a time before religion.

Religion therefore can be a construct which originates from the organized group behavior of some humans (apes) which turned out to be smarter than normal monkeys. It could very well be that religious groups simply have a better survival rate, since religion is very suitable for war and conversion, which is like a cell that assimilates all enemy cells, whereas non religion is not so developed in that aspect, at least in the past.

And it seems to be that if at first there were many gods, than there are only a couple, and then only one, the endpoint to me should be zero, or at least .5, or .01 gods, and finally .00001 gods, etc.


If what you are really trying to argue is that morality comes from evolution, and evolution from god, since everything is from god,

it all goes back to, then where did god come from?

And if you say "god just is", which is very zen, I can also say the "universe just is".

What then would be the purpose of questioning the origin of morality in first place?

You don't need to know that it comes from god to justify what is moral. You only need to decide for yourself whether you think it's moral or not, based on your own experiences and reasoning.

Moral questions are not answered by asking "god", only you can answer moral questions.

[wiploc]

Ah, but Zzyxx...THIS thread, of all others on this forum, was begun for just this purpose:

To prove that gods do not exist.

We've been over this before. If the thread exists to prove something, it is that it can be reasonable to believe that gods do not exist.

[wiploc]

In these debates and the feedback I receive in personal communication, it does not seem as though theistic viewpoints have been presented convincingly.

This might be sufficient as a response to those who try to prove that gods exist.

However, it's not sufficient to prove that they do not.

It is not sufficient to disprove all gods. That's true.

But it isn't alone. We also have parsimony.

Let's divide gods into two categories: the gods that there is reason to believe in, and the gods that there is no reason to believe in.

The first category is dealt with by the fact that, as it turns out, there isn't really any reason to believe in them after all.

The second category is dealt with by parsimony.

And that's exhaustive: That's all the gods. It is reasonable, then, to believe that no gods exist.

You may say that's not absolute proof that no gods exist. That's true. But it is proof that it is reasonable to believe that no gods exist.