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.

[wiploc]

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. ...

From there you go on to condemn Christian belief as bad and silly and nonsense. If you think Christian beliefs are bad and silly and nonsense, then why are you agreeing that people don't need justification for their beliefs?

If we don't need justification, isn't one belief as good as another?

This is like, a few pages ago (page 47 about?) you were saying, "I do not judge" over and over, while simultaneously condemning (passing judgement on) the morality of the Christian god as barbaric.

[dianaiad]

[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.

That's false on the face of it. It may be true that 'god' does not, but that religion does not? C'mon...if the golden rule is a mainstay of most religions, and it does seem to be, then how can it not 'come into play?'

But please note; I'm not the one here claiming that God gave us the Golden Rule and that it is ALL religion. The claim was that BECAUSE there is no deity, then the Golden rule, or 'reciprocity,' MUST then be instinctual, evolved...and because it is instinctual and evolved, then of course there is no God.

If you can't see the insanely obvious circularity of this position, I can. Shoot, y'all can certainly see it when a theist says "I believe in God because the bible says so, and I believe the bible because God wrote it."

The challenge from me...and indeed, from the title of the post, was to prove that gods do not exist.

NOT to give alternate explanations that might be true because there might not be a deity. Justify the belief that gods do not exist.

Not "justify the belief that there isn't enough evidence to prove that a god exists," but "justify the belief that gods do not exist."

Or, if you want to take it further, justify the 'strong' atheistic view.

Claiming that something 'may' have happened differently does not, in any way whatsoever, prove that it DID happen differently.

.............................and yes, I am quite aware that claiming that 'God may have done this" is not proof that He did. However, I"m not the one making the claims here.

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.

Actually, I have never made that claim. Sorry. I'll admit that, since I believe that there is a God, that we have morals, at least in part, because He created us. However, I'm quite aware that people can have morals and ethics without believing in a deity. In fact, I have mentioned at least one atheistic ethical system that seems pretty good to me.

My quarrel is with those incredibly--fundamentalist?--yeah, 'fundamentalist' works--atheists who actually claim that morals and ethics held by atheists have somehow evolved completely apart and separate from all the religious philosophies that have been around since mankind first started recording things. What, did atheists come from some alien realm, then, so that nothing they think or belief has been so much as the tiniest bit influenced by theistic cultures, writings, and thinkers?

Of course, if there is no deity, there never HAS been one, and thus all the religions ever created did so without the influence of a deity, yes? Therefore, in a very real sense, they have all been atheist...that is, 'without god.' All those moral and ethical systems that religions came up with, in other words, came from the same place the avowed atheists claim theirs came from.

So what's the problem with giving religions credit where it is deserved?

Oh, and would you kindly explain to me how coming up with an alternative explanation for the appearance of morals in human culture proves that God doesn't exist?

I mean, really...did you read my example of the cat who crossed the road?

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.

I don't have to admit anything of the sort, sir. Indeed, even if there were no deity, the probability of a 'time before religion' is pretty slim. The evidence shows that mankind has been thinking about this stuff since they could, er, think.

...and if I am willing to admit that the presence of religion is not proof that god exists (and you certainly can't claim that) then you have to admit that an alternative theory of the presence of morals and ethics doesn't prove that one does not exist.

And that's what this thread is about. It's not my job to prove that God is. In THIS thread, if in no other, it is your job to prove...PROVE, mind you, that none does.

No 'possible alternative,' or even 'plausible' one, does that.

But don't worry, I'm not going to take an inability to prove that no god exists as proof that one does.

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.

"can be" "could very well be,'...not proof of 'wasn't.' Sorry.

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?

You asking me as a general theist, a Christian theist, or a Mormon?

.....'cause, if you are asking me as a Mormon, I'll refer you to this:

[youtube][/youtube]

Just sayin'.

Mormons are different.

Now, back to the original programing....

My beliefs do not prove that my beliefs are true. If I can acknowledge that, why can't you guys?

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

Well, certainly.

That's not what's at issue in this thread, is it?

Nor is it the problem Artie has.

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.

Unless, of course, there's a God to ask.

And that's the point. In THIS thread, it's your job to prove that there isn't one, not mine to prove that there is....something that, just ask pretty much anybody, I've never claimed to be able to prove anyway.

[spiritualrevolution]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Unless, of course, there's a God to ask.

Unless, of course, God never answers you.

Oops, what now, still gotta think for yourself.


And you are wrong about how there is no time before religion. And here is a parable of the thinking human:

Once upon a time, there was a random group of hunter gatherer's, in which there is person A, B, C and the leader D, among others.

A and B find a shiny rock. A and B both claim it. A is stronger than B and so B is unable to claim the rock from A. Later in the night, B kills A while he is sleeping and claims the rock.

In the morning the hunter gatherer's are horrified to find A murdered. No one sees who has committed the crime, but they suspect B of doing the crime because he now has the shiny rock. Leader D decides not to punish B for now.

Person C see's the rock and thinks to himself, if B can get away with this crime and still get the rock, I'll kill B too, since I also want the rock.

Day turns to night, and C waits until B has gone to sleep and C proceeds to try and kill B. Unfortunately for him, this night leader D has calculated that someone may try to commit a similar crime, and has stayed up to watch along with some others.

Leader D catches B in the act, but is unable to save C's life.

Come morning, the whole group now knows that C has killed B, and leader D has to decide what to do, to solve this problem of indiscriminate killing.

He decrees that C will be killed for his crime, and the rock will stay with one person each night, so that no more people will fight over it.

Other hunter gatherer's see the outcomes of person's A, B, C and this outcome leads some of them think that killing other's is risky, and is not too advantageous to do so.

The another hunter gatherer's , person E, has children, and thinking of their future survival, passes on a general rule, do not kill your own clan members to take their possessions.

Thus, the group of hunter gatherer's continues on, and the children of the group who are born with a higher aversion to murder manage to survive better than the other children to are born with no aversion.

Which leads to today, where people in general have an aversion to murder.


Absolutely no god. No religion.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to dianaiad]

Unless, of course, there's a God to ask.

Unless, of course, God never answers you.

Unless, of course, He does.

But then you still have to go and think for yourself. After all, He may (or may not) answer your questions, but you still have to think up the questions.

Oops, what now, still gotta think for yourself.


And you are wrong about how there is no time before religion. And here is a parable of the thinking human:

Once upon a time, there was a random group of hunter gatherer's, in which there is person A, B, C and the leader D, among others.

A and B find a shiny rock. A and B both claim it. A is stronger than B and so B is unable to claim the rock from A. Later in the night, B kills A while he is sleeping and claims the rock.

In the morning the hunter gatherer's are horrified to find A murdered. No one sees who has committed the crime, but they suspect B of doing the crime because he now has the shiny rock. Leader D decides not to punish B for now.

Person C see's the rock and thinks to himself, if B can get away with this crime and still get the rock, I'll kill B too, since I also want the rock.

Day turns to night, and C waits until B has gone to sleep and C proceeds to try and kill B. Unfortunately for him, this night leader D has calculated that someone may try to commit a similar crime, and has stayed up to watch along with some others.

Leader D catches B in the act, but is unable to save C's life.

Come morning, the whole group now knows that C has killed B, and leader D has to decide what to do, to solve this problem of indiscriminate killing.

He decrees that C will be killed for his crime, and the rock will stay with one person each night, so that no more people will fight over it.

Other hunter gatherer's see the outcomes of person's A, B, C and this outcome leads some of them think that killing other's is risky, and is not too advantageous to do so.

The another hunter gatherer's , person E, has children, and thinking of their future survival, passes on a general rule, do not kill your own clan members to take their possessions.

Thus, the group of hunter gatherer's continues on, and the children of the group who are born with a higher aversion to murder manage to survive better than the other children to are born with no aversion.

Which leads to today, where people in general have an aversion to murder.


Absolutely no god. No religion.

Nice story. Sounds a bit like Cain and Abel, actually.

Now here's the problem. The story of Cain and Abel has been written down (true or not, it has been written down) your story of ABC and the black rock hasn't.

Anywhere.

Or anything like unto it.

Now, if the story of Cain and Abel does not prove that God exists, how can your completely made up out of your head story of the shiny black rock prove that one does not?

[spiritualrevolution]

[Replying to post 744 by dianaiad]

Name me one time you or anybody heard god talk. I bet She sounds like raven from teen titans.

Now, if the story of Cain and Abel does not prove that God exists, how can your completely made up out of your head story of the shiny black rock prove that one does not?

If the cain and abel story is written down, it was written down by human hands. My hands are human. My story is just as valid, and pre-dates cain and able. If you want, I'll even give my guys names. Alice, Bob, Cameron, Danielle, Elijah. There.

[Danmark]

[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.

That's false on the face of it. It may be true that 'god' does not, but that religion does not? C'mon...if the golden rule is a mainstay of most religions, and it does seem to be, then how can it not 'come into play?'

But please note; I'm not the one here claiming that God gave us the Golden Rule and that it is ALL religion. The claim was that BECAUSE there is no deity, then the Golden rule, or 'reciprocity,' MUST then be instinctual, evolved...and because it is instinctual and evolved, then of course there is no God.

If you can't see the insanely obvious circularity of this position, I can. Shoot, y'all can certainly see it when a theist says "I believe in God because the bible says so, and I believe the bible because God wrote it."

The challenge from me...and indeed, from the title of the post, was to prove that gods do not exist.

That's fairly said, but we must distinguish between "God" [the supernatural] and religion. It is irrefutable that religion exists. Religion is a fundamental part of every [or nearly every] culture. Although, like most academics, anthropologists may not be in complete agreement about the definition of religion, traditionally they would agree on something like: the belief in spirits or ghosts, the use of magic or other rituals to control the supernatural and the use of appeal to the divine as a means of discovering secret knowledge. Performing rituals such as sacrifice, dance, prayer, and chanting are methods used to bend the will of 'the gods' by appealing to the supernatural.

Certainly the development of a morality that is pleasing to 'the gods' is an important part of religion. We see this today in the tawdry and transparent claims of buffoons like Pat Robertson who assure us that natural disasters have visited us because of 'the gay lifestyle' or whatever he or his ilk are peddling at the moment.

So, ... we must agree that religion not only exists, but remains a force for attempting to alter human conduct, for good or ill. This is in contrast to God and the supernatural, for which there is no evidence. None of this proves gods do not exist, but it certainly 'justifies' the belief that gods do not exist, because we can explain the nearly universal emergence of religion in purely human terms, as an expedient to try to understand and control nature. I submit that this is precisely why some in the religious community have such obvious resistance to accept science, because indirectly it supplants God because science shows we do not need god either to explain or to control nature.

[wiploc]

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?

I'm a "rule utilitarian," not an "act utilitarian." So my answer is that rape is wrong because it tends to increase unhappiness. If you contrive a specific circumstance in which rape would not increase unhappiness, that doesn't change the fact that it is wrong even in that circumstance.

Otherwise, see, all utilitarianism gets you is a tendency to rationalize that your particular [rape, murder, robbery, waterboarding, dishonesty, religion, warmongering, jury tampering, or whatever] is okay in your particular circumstance.

[wiploc]

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.

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.

Plantinga doesn't seem to believe that we have "epistemic duties." If we don't, then you can believe anything you want, without blame.

But if you and Plantinga are right, then Hitler wasn't wrong to believe he should murder all those Jews. And, frankly, if he wasn't wrong to believe it, I don't see how he could have been wrong to do it.

Somebody (Osteng?) has lectured me on the difference in "burden of proof" and "epistemic justification." If you don't make a claim, you don't have the burden of proof. But even if you don't make a claim, you can still have a belief, and you need a warrant, a justification, for holding a belief. At least if you don't want your belief to be reckless, and immorally so.

If this isn't true, you can't fault someone for believing she should murder or rape or lie to start wars or any other damaging thing.

I suppose you could try to distinguish between believing and acting, saying something like, "It is okay to believe something without justification, but it's not okay to act on that belief without justification." But if you don't need justification for your beliefs, then you don't need justification to believe that it is okay to act on them.

[wiploc]

... 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.

But see:

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.

My apologies, Dianaiad. You were right on target.

[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?

I'm a "rule utilitarian," not an "act utilitarian." So my answer is that rape is wrong because it tends to increase unhappiness. If you contrive a specific circumstance in which rape would not increase unhappiness, that doesn't change the fact that it is wrong even in that circumstance.

Killing people also tends to increase unhappiness, and yet in some circumstances it's obviously not wrong. Using your logic, shouldn't we say that killing is then always wrong too? If you are willing to consider particular circumstances with regard to killing, why aren't you willing to do the same with regard to rape?

Surely you must be able to judge the morality of rape in a particular situation and not try to dodge the question by saying that it is generally wrong.