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.

[Wordleymaster1]

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.

Can't we believe anything we want with OR withour blame? Blame is pointless really. It's just there to try to make someone feel guilty. The feeling of guilt (or any feeling) is up to the individual to take it on or not.
We can fault all we want - it doesn't really matter

[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. ...

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.

Are you paying any attention at all to what is being said?

The Christians (specifically the Christians who actually wrote the New Testament) are indeed trying to claim that their God is real for you and me. Not merely a faith-based belief for themselves. They even preach that there is "no excuse" for not believing in their God.

So they aren't merely claiming to have a faith-based belief. They are making direct and absolute accusations toward other people.

So clearly you aren't paying much attention.

If Christians want to merely believe on faith that some wrathful God is out to get them and that they need to be saved by his demigod son who was crucified at the demands of this God's very won corrupt priests. Then fine. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. In fact, I personally think it's hilarious.

But if they are going to DEBATE with me that they think their religion has some sort of merit and that I should take it seriously, then you're darn toot'in that I'm going to point out precisely why this religion is utterly absurd.

[dianaiad]

[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.

There are quite a few stories of people who claim to have heard God talk. Most people imagine that He sounds a bit like Morgan Freeman.

Don't get snippy with me on this, m'friend. I'm not claiming that the bible, or religion, or even my very sincere beliefs that god exists is in any way PROOF that He does. I've never claimed to be able to prove that He does. Quite the opposite, actually.

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.

If your story is as valid as that of Cain and Abel, then Cain and Abel is just as valid as yours. And your story does not predate it, given that you do not predate it.

So...the bible was written by humans. You are quite right.
................and your point is?

If the story of Cain and Abel does not prove that God exists, YOUR example doesn't prove that He does not.

Which is what this thread is about.

What you and Artie and others are doing is presenting alternate possibilities, and used that possible alternative as proof that any other explanation is false.

Sorry, but that is not proof.

Shoot, that's not even decent logic.

In a town my parents drove through, many years ago, somewhere in Iowa, there is a park. In the middle of the park is a rather large rock, upon which children played. Now, my father, who was not thrilled with Iowa, being a child of the mountains himself, used to tell me that it was the only rock in the entire state, brought to that park at great expense by the city fathers in order to show children what a rock was, and to give them something to see and climb so that they would believe those outlandish stories about mountains.

An alternative explanation for that rock was that it was dropped there by a glacier.

Which story is more credible? Which is true? Does the mere existence of one possibility, no matter how much more practical it sounds, utterly prove the other wrong?

Now I am quite willing to acknowledge, at least as a possibility, that you are correct; that there is no deity and that your considered explanations regarding how we became moral and ethical (if, indeed, we actually are...) creatures might be valid. Indeed, if there is no god, something like this must have happened.

But you are begging the question; assuming the consequent, doing some circular reasoning..you name the logical fallacy, you are committing it.

[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.

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.

Wow, good question. I'll have to think on it.

[Wordleymaster1]

[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.

HA! Raven! Love that show - so funny. The one where Robin dances in the car before his driving test....too freakin' funny
Anywho the only one a person needs to convince of God's existing is themselves, black rock, super ghost or whatever they need to use to do so. Too bad so many people think they need to convince others.

[KenRU]

There are quite a few stories of people who claim to have heard God talk. Most people imagine that He sounds a bit like Morgan Freeman.

I always imagined he'd sound more like George Burns.

What you and Artie and others are doing is presenting alternate possibilities, and used that possible alternative as proof that any other explanation is false.

I was taking it as they are showing alternatives that are better/more likely an explanation than the god explanation. And that is a justification to believe that gods do not exist (not prove). And that is what this thread is about.

Sorry, but that is not proof.

Don't need proof for this thread, just a justification.

Shoot, that's not even decent logic.

Altruism, compassion, sharing, familial bonds are all exhibited in nature, and it is very logical to assume that we derive ours in the same manner. That seems to me to be decent logic. An unexplained, unproven, baseless, extra-dimensional, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being as a Cause is a logical explanation?

-All the best

[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.

Are you paying any attention at all to what is being said?

The Christians (specifically the Christians who actually wrote the New Testament) are indeed trying to claim that their God is real for you and me. Not merely a faith-based belief for themselves. They even preach that there is "no excuse" for not believing in their God.

So they aren't merely claiming to have a faith-based belief. They are making direct and absolute accusations toward other people.

So clearly you aren't paying much attention.

If Christians want to merely believe on faith that some wrathful God is out to get them and that they need to be saved by his demigod son who was crucified at the demands of this God's very won corrupt priests. Then fine. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. In fact, I personally think it's hilarious.

But if they are going to DEBATE with me that they think their religion has some sort of merit and that I should take it seriously, then you're darn toot'in that I'm going to point out precisely why this religion is utterly absurd.

You said that people can hold beliefs without justification, and then you attacked people for holding an unjustified belief. It reminded me of the time you said --- and this is translated freely --- "I do not judge. Christians suck. I do not judge. Jehovah is a barbarian. I do not judge!"

I thought you'd want it pointed out that you seem to be taking both sides of of an issue, contradicting yourself.

[dianaiad]

There are quite a few stories of people who claim to have heard God talk. Most people imagine that He sounds a bit like Morgan Freeman.

I always imagined he'd sound more like George Burns.

What you and Artie and others are doing is presenting alternate possibilities, and used that possible alternative as proof that any other explanation is false.

I was taking it as they are showing alternatives that are better/more likely an explanation than the god explanation. And that is a justification to believe that gods do not exist (not prove). And that is what this thread is about.

Sorry, but that is not proof.

Don't need proof for this thread, just a justification.

Shoot, that's not even decent logic.

Altruism, compassion, sharing, familial bonds are all exhibited in nature, and it is very logical to assume that we derive ours in the same manner. That seems to me to be decent logic. An unexplained, unproven, baseless, extra-dimensional, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being as a Cause is a logical explanation?

-All the best

Actually, I rather thought this thread was about justifying the belief that gods do not exist. Not "justify the belief that there is insufficient evidence for deity," but a rather positive claim; No gods exist. Period.

That's a slightly different thing, it seems to me.

One CAN justify the belief that there's no compelling evidence for deity. I believe that about every description of deity but mine.

However, that's not how the challenge was worded, and that's how I'm taking it, here, if nowhere else.

Please justify the belief that there are no gods. Not 'I see no sufficient evidence for deity, but acknowledge the possibility, however dim and unlikely, that someone might come up with evidence that shows the influence/existence of one," but "There ain't none, never was one, and it is utterly impossible for a god or gods to exist, and no evidence will be found to support the existence of one because there ain't so such animal."

There have been a WHOLE bunch of pages that have dodged this; same old/same old attacks upon theism...which, no matter how many descriptions of god might get debunked, does not disprove the possible existence of any sort of deity of any description.

Moving the goal posts....

But, unless wiploc miswrote (and that's possible) and really meant to get people to justify the belief that gods probably do not exist, or to justify the belief that there's no evidence at the moment to support one, I'm reading it as written: justify the belief that gods do not exist.

That's not a refusal to believe the claims of others. THAT, in my opinion, anyway, is a direct and very positive claim in and of itself.

"Gods do not exist."

Period.

Justify that.

[Artie]

I was taking it as they are showing alternatives that are better/more likely an explanation than the god explanation. And that is a justification to believe that gods do not exist (not prove). And that is what this thread is about.

Well stated.

Sorry, but that is not proof.

Don't need proof for this thread, just a justification.

I've started another thread about "proof". http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

[Divine Insight]

You said that people can hold beliefs without justification, and then you attacked people for holding an unjustified belief. It reminded me of the time you said --- and this is translated freely --- "I do not judge. Christians suck. I do not judge. Jehovah is a barbarian. I do not judge!"

I thought you'd want it pointed out that you seem to be taking both sides of of an issue, contradicting yourself.

This is entirely your own false perceptions.

For one thing I don't "attack" anyone for holding unjustified beliefs. On the contrary I have held that anyone is free to believe whatever they so desire, and that include Christians. And I have held that position since I've joined this forum.

I also do not not judge the "morality" of anyone. Again, this is a total misunderstanding on your behalf. For one thing if anyone does things that I personally consider to be immoral I simply assume that they are mentally insane. And that's not a moral judgement. On the contrary I'm actually giving them the benefit of the doubt morally by assuming that they are simply mentally ill.

Finally, I don't "judge" the Biblical God. I simply point out that the Biblical mythologies are inconsistent, contradictory, clearly false, and do IMHO, have their God Character, doing things that I would personally consider to be immoral.

Moreover, I conclude that since God is supposed to be the epitome of morality, and these fables have this God doing clearly immoral things, this only proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that these fables are false.

So all of your conclusions about me are totally misguided. You simply don't understand my position on things.

I don't "attack" any Christians beliefs, especially if they aren't attempting to DEBATE with me that their beliefs are absolute truths.

I think you are confusing DEBATE with ATTACKING.

This is a Debate forum. The idea is make arguments for why positions that other people hold to be true are not true. If people don't want to debate their beliefs they have no business registering and posting on a forum that was specifically created for the purpose of debate.

I don't even talk about religion at all in my personal life. I let it all out here on these forums, because this is the place to do it.

If you knew me in person you would be highly unlikely to ever be discussing religion with me unless you were following me around constantly preaching to me. If you asked me about my religious view I would tell you. If you were interested I would tell you as much as you would like to know. But if you started preaching at me, I would simply leave.

I won't even argue with people about religion in person. I have no desire to do that. I post on an internet forum like this because the ideas I post are seen by many other people and it helps to raise awareness of how seriously false the Bible truly is.

If you see that as "attacking people's beliefs" then you need to rethink why you're on a religious debate forum.