What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[ENIGMA]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

For clarification:

By God do you mean the Christian God or the God said to reside in "the gaps" or some other specification of deity?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism? Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

For clarification: By God do you mean the Christian God or the God said to reside in "the gaps" or some other specification of deity?

I'm talking about a causal-metaphysical structural agent that is the ultimate cause of the universe and its basic properties. If you want to extend the function of that causal-metaphysical agent to the tendency of the universe to evolve complex structures (e.g., life, intelligence, consciousness, etc) then that's okay too.

[bernee51]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

Interesting question Harvey1 - apparently simple and straightfoward on the surface but not so when looked at in depth..

For a start an atheist may or may not claim that god doesn't exist. The only requirement for atheism is a non-belief in a god. This is different to making a positive statement that god does not exist. These are often called weak and strong atheism.

Secondly as Enigma states - which god? The god of christianity, very involved, not only in the creation but also intervening - giving commands, inspiring writers, sending himself to be sacrificed et al. Or a god than clicked his fingers, got the whole ball rolling then sat back and watched impassively?

As this is the christan sub-forum, I will assume, for sake of argument, that you refer to the interventionist christian god. In the case of this entity I would describe myself as a strong atheist. From the point of view of logic, the Argument for Non Belief, the Argument from Evil and and the Argument from Prayer, all of which are based around god's own words (as the bible is claimed to be) are sufficient proof of the non-existence of the christian god. This logic is backed up by personal experience - basically self enquiry through reading and meditation.

In the case of a non-interventionist god I would say I am a little closer to weak atheism in that, while I cannot see any reason for there being such an entity, I do not discount the possibility with as much conviction. That said, over recent times I have moved closer to a strong atheism - and very much doubt the existene of any supernatural entity.

So belief or otherwise in god is going to depend very much on definition and I do not doubt that a definition of god could be put with which I agree. For example....god is the universe. That begs the question - why call it god.

When asking this question of atheists I always believe it is good to ask why a christian doesn't belive in Zeus, or Odin, or ...{insert name of any of gods in whom belief hsa been expressed}

In short, I do not believe in god because I know of no reason why one should exist.

[juliod]

I'm talking about a causal-metaphysical structural agent that is the ultimate cause of the universe and its basic properties.

Ah, in this case, the best evidence against is the fact that no one has proposed a "god" that is in any way plausible, and for which there is the slightest reason to think he/she/it/they exist.

What are the gods that have been proposed? Here is a short list:

1) Small statues.
2) Made-up beings.
3) Emporers and Pharoahs.

Good argument can be made in each case the the claimed god is a fake.

Now, as for your proposed "causal-metaphysical structural agent" I think you need to show us that it qualifies as a "god" in some meanignful fashion. You might call gravity a "causal-metaphysical structural agent" but no one considers it a god.

If you don't tell us more about your theorized being, such as whether it has an independant identity, a sentient intelligence, and an effective free-will, it would be confused with whatever natural causes or events that resulted in our universe.

DanZ

[harvey1]

Interesting question Harvey1 - apparently simple and straightfoward on the surface but not so when looked at in depth..

No, I want this to be a simple question. I want this not to be about a particular religion, but a definition of God that satisfies even the panetheist or deist, but fails to satisfy the atheist.

For a start an atheist may or may not claim that god doesn't exist.

Well, that's an agnostic as far as I'm concerned. Even if you disagree, I posed the question to those only who wish to give their strongest argument against a belief in God. Basically, I reject the view that an argument against theism is an argument for atheism. It certainly doesn't hurt atheism's cause by weakening theism, but if you argue like that, you must show that theism cannot possibly be true, and that's a real tough argument to make. So far, I've seen very few atheists make that kind of argument.

Secondly as Enigma states - which god? The god of christianity, very involved, not only in the creation but also intervening - giving commands, inspiring writers, sending himself to be sacrificed et al. Or a god than clicked his fingers, got the whole ball rolling then sat back and watched impassively?

Read my reply to Enigma in this regard.

In the case of a non-interventionist god I would say I am a little closer to weak atheism in that, while I cannot see any reason for there being such an entity, I do not discount the possibility with as much conviction. That said, over recent times I have moved closer to a strong atheism - and very much doubt the existene of any supernatural entity.

I'd be very interested in knowing your strong arguments to support your position on this...

So belief or otherwise in god is going to depend very much on definition and I do not doubt that a definition of god could be put with which I agree. For example....god is the universe. That begs the question - why call it god.

Often times, pantheism is construed along these lines, but many Hindus are pantheists, for example. God is everything you see. God takes many different forms (trees, birds, insects, humans, etc). Most pantheists are not materialists. That is, there are aspects of the universe that don't take on material characteristics (e.g., consciousness). Einstein was a pantheist, but for him the laws of physics were just another form of God. They were metaphysical, but part of the universe.

In short, I do not believe in god because I know of no reason why one should exist.

That's not really an argument. Imagine if I said prior to Thompson and Rutherford that I don't believe in atoms because I know of no reason why they should exist. For philosophical reasons, there were many who believed in atoms before Thomson and Rutherford, but there was no compelling scientific evidence of their existence prior to these scientists. So, using that metaphor, it's not enough to say that atoms lack proof, you have to show a reason why we will never find atoms.

[harvey1]

I'm talking about a causal-metaphysical structural agent that is the ultimate cause of the universe and its basic properties.

Ah, in this case, the best evidence against is the fact that no one has proposed a "god" that is in any way plausible, and for which there is the slightest reason to think he/she/it/they exist.

Okay, I'm proposing it now. Since atheists hold that all such entities do not exist, I would think that what someone proposes in the future has nothing to do with the atheist's proposition in being true.

Look at this way. If I said that a 'theory-of-everything' does not and probably cannot exist, that would make me an a-theory-of-everythingist (or a-thingist). As an 'athingist' I am holding my position not just today, but I'm declaring the state of things tomorrow, next year, 10 years, 100 years, and forever. Someone can come along and say they have a new theory-of-everything, and whoever is an athingist in the future should reject that theory-of-everything because they don't believe such is possible. Afterall, they are athingists.

Good argument can be made in each case the the claimed god is a fake.

I'm not interested in past views that an athingist has debunked, I want to know why they reject modern conceptions of a theory-of-everything.

Now, as for your proposed "causal-metaphysical structural agent" I think you need to show us that it qualifies as a "god" in some meanignful fashion. You might call gravity a "causal-metaphysical structural agent" but no one considers it a god.

No one considers it metaphysical, either. There's a particle called a graviton which is supposed to (theoretically) act as the carrier of the gravitational force.

If you don't tell us more about your theorized being, such as whether it has an independant identity, a sentient intelligence, and an effective free-will, it would be confused with whatever natural causes or events that resulted in our universe.

Why should I have to? Doesn't atheism already tell us that metaphysical agents do not exist? I want to know why I should believe you.

[bigmrpig]

Why should I have to? Doesn't atheism already tell us that metaphysical agents do not exist? I want to know why I should believe you.

If you consider "God" to be the cause of the creation of the universe, without knowing what that may be, and accepting that it may something that's not a being, but simply a name for an occurrence, then an atheist would consider God exists. God exists in that the universe was created because of something, and we can call that something, whatever it may be, God. Even if it's not supernatural.

That's why he wants an explanation of what you're saying God is, because if God is simply whatever created the universe, then anyone who believes the universe was created would believe in God. If you say God is a higher being with no physical entity, fewer people will likely believe it. If you say God is a being that takes on a physical form, likely even fewer will believe it. Each time you change your definition of God, you get differing amounts of "atheists," non-believers of God. If you're saying a God, in order to be a God, must be a being that controls everyone, everything, and every occurence, then you will likely not find any believers.

Until you give at least a vague definition on what a "God" is in the context you want, it's hard to give an answer.

If you're talking about God just as a higher being possibly responsible for creating... "stuff", than that's all that needed to be said.

[harvey1]

Each time you change your definition of God, you get differing amounts of "atheists," non-believers of God. If you're saying a God, in order to be a God, must be a being that controls everyone, everything, and every occurence, then you will likely not find any believers.

But, there are designations such as deists, pantheists, panentheists, idealists, platonists, neoplatonists, etc. If an atheist really was set against only a particular kind of theism, they have other options. By going strictly against the metaphysical concept of God, they are opening themselves up to my request for their best argument.

Geez, it really isn't tough, is it? I mean how many collective years have most of the atheists on this board been atheists? I think we should see a ton of arguments in support of atheism.

Until you give at least a vague definition on what a "God" is in the context you want, it's hard to give an answer. If you're talking about God just as a higher being possibly responsible for creating... "stuff", than that's all that needed to be said.

Not so. Atheists are saying that there was no causal/metaphysical structure that is responsible for the material universe. This is atheism. I want to know what is your argument to support it. I'm not asking for much at all.

Am I to understand that atheism is only about attacking theism? That's it?

[Quarkhead]

Atheism doesn't need arguments. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that I don't have an invisible friend, or that I was not abducted by aliens.

A diety necessarily exists on faith, rather than on evidentiary, visible proofs. Therefor, it can be neither proven nor disproven. Just like my invisible friend. If you can prove I do not have this invisible firend, you have an argument for atheism. If you can prove I do have this friend, there is your proof for a diety.

But asking for arguments for atheism is silly. You only mean atheism in the context of disproving religion. On it's own, atheism requires only for us to rely on that which is observable, detectable. You want us to define atheism as a refutation of deity, but if one relies on that which is quantifiable, one need not define reality by everything it is not.

People don't tend to define "god" by disproving every other religion. They define it in positive statements. Then, you want us to define atheism in only "negative" statements? Forget it!