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.

[otseng]

In other words, I can prove logically that the literal Bible is blatant example of many logical contradictions. The Biblical God that is literally described by the Bible cannot logically exist because the bible literally contradicts its own God countless times throughout the biblical literature.

Yes, "contradictions" exist in the Bible. But, that in itself does not disprove Christianity.

There are many possibilities to account for contradictions.

One is that our interpretations are incorrect, like you already mentioned.

Another possibility is that we're limited in our understanding. An example of this is the "contradiction" of whether light is a particle or a wave. Light exhibits properties of both, but we do not reject it simply because of a contradiction in our understanding of it.

Another explanation is that we can have an incorrect view of the Bible. Yes, it's an important book, but the Bible is not what Christians worship (or should not be worshipping). The Bible did not drop straight down from heaven on earth. But, we must acknowledge that flawed people wrote it, transcribed it, and translated it. God can use flawed people, but the work of flawed men will make its way into the Bibles that we hold in our hands today.

[otseng]

And I'll add

5. The Problem of Evil.

This is a huge one. I'd even say this is the biggest challenge to Christianity. I'll defer on addressing this one until later.

[Artie]

Looks like this will be a very interesting thread...

[Replying to post 1 by wiploc]Only one thing. The continual failure for theists to demonstrate the existence of any gods, for the past 6000 years. That is enough for me to shift from weak atheism to strong atheism.

This is shifting the burden. The OP is asking for justification that gods do not exist. Claiming that theism has no valid arguments (which I disagree with) is not justification for atheism. And even if there is NO argument for theism, on your argument alone, it can only lead one to agnosticism, not strong atheism.

Well, you are a strong atheist regarding the existence of Thor and Poseidon I presume? What is your justification for being a strong atheist regarding them?

[Divine Insight]

In other words, I can prove logically that the literal Bible is blatant example of many logical contradictions. The Biblical God that is literally described by the Bible cannot logically exist because the bible literally contradicts its own God countless times throughout the biblical literature.

Yes, "contradictions" exist in the Bible. But, that in itself does not disprove Christianity.

There are many possibilities to account for contradictions.

One is that our interpretations are incorrect, like you already mentioned.

Another possibility is that we're limited in our understanding. An example of this is the "contradiction" of whether light is a particle or a wave. Light exhibits properties of both, but we do not reject it simply because of a contradiction in our understanding of it.

Another explanation is that we can have an incorrect view of the Bible. Yes, it's an important book, but the Bible is not what Christians worship (or should not be worshipping). The Bible did not drop straight down from heaven on earth. But, we must acknowledge that flawed people wrote it, transcribed it, and translated it. God can use flawed people, but the work of flawed men will make its way into the Bibles that we hold in our hands today.

What you suggest here is already a death sentence for Christianity as a religion.

Why?

Well, because you concede that the Bible may contain contradictions. It may contain condemnations by men. It is potentially flawed and imperfect. It is easy to see where many people could easily misunderstand what it might be trying to even say.

Therefore the very idea that to doubt any parts of it, or to not understand any parts of it, could be grounds for commendation by a God is unrealistic.

For me the Bible does not only contain self-contradictions concerning the supposed character of the God itself, but it also contains contradictions with the known sciences (i.e. things we observe to be true about nature).

For example, science shows us clearly that there is overwhelming evidence to believe that plants and animals had always died and that disease and natural disasters had always occurred. We also have every reason to believe that animals have eaten each other long before humans ever showed up on the planet. We have quite a bit of evidence that this is indeed the case.

Yet the Bible is asking us to believe that our supposed fall from grace is the cause of death and all manner of evil in the world including "thorns growing on plants".

But we know that this is not true. These things were a natural part of the world before humans ever appeared on the scene.

Yet Christianity holds that if we fail to believe in the Bible and accept Jesus as the demigod son of God born of a virgin mortal woman we will be condemned. And it doesn't even matter if we reject evil and embrace high moral ideals. If we haven't confessed the Jesus is the only demigod son of God and accept him as our savior we will be damned.

And all because we don't believe in a collection of ancient fables that even you concede may contain contradictions, inconsistencies, corrupt input from flawed mortal humans, and that we have simply, and innocently, misunderstood it.

Our damnation for not having accepted the rumors that Jesus was the virgin born demigod son of God is justified.

How so?

Christianity cannot be defended whilst simultaneously confessing that the Bible is fallible, corrupt, contradictory, and easily misunderstood.

All of those things are more than sufficient justification for innocent people to reject it. And thus to damn those people for not believing it would be totally unjust.

This is why Christian Fundamentalists demand that the Bible is indeed infallible and there can be no excuse for not believing it. I actually agree with the fundamentalists on that point. That would indeed need to be the truth of the situation in order for Christianity to be a sound religion.

But it's clearly not the situation. So this idea of an infallible bible that cannot be innocently misunderstood is out. Christianity fails if that's the case, and the fundamentalist at least recognize this fact.

The fundamentalist Muslims hold the same view on their Qur'an. They claim that it is infallible and therefore there is no excuse for not believing it.

Neither Christianity nor Islam can survive by confessing that their Holy Books are fallible and prone to easy misunderstanding or disbelief by any innocent person. That would allow for non-believers to be "innocent" because their non-belief can then be justified.

They could not then be justly damned for simply not believing. But both of these religions depend on this concept.

If a person can disbelieve in Jesus and still be saved, then the whole point of Christianity is lost. There is no need for anyone to believe in Christianity if that is the case. Nor would accepting Jesus as your "savior" be a requirement to be saved. And finally there could be no truth to the words, "No one comes by the father but through me".

Christianity can't afford to allow that people can innocently misunderstand or disbelieve in the Bible. That would be the death of Christianity. No one would need it at that point.

[wiploc]

Looks like this will be a very interesting thread...

Thanks.

[Replying to post 1 by wiploc]
Only one thing. The continual failure for theists to demonstrate the existence of any gods, for the past 6000 years. That is enough for me to shift from weak atheism to strong atheism.

This is shifting the burden. The OP is asking for justification that gods do not exist. Claiming that theism has no valid arguments (which I disagree with) is not justification for atheism. And even if there is NO argument for theism, on your argument alone, it can only lead one to agnosticism, not strong atheism.

That depends on whether theism is significant.

Theists retreat, when losing arguments, to the claim that there could be some kind of a god who doesn't do anything, who not only isn't omnipotent but who couldn't even supersize fries, or who doesn't care about evil, or otherwise is not testable or significant.

But when they think they are winning, they claim their gods are important. They do things. They leave tracks, so there is reason to believe they exist.

But then they can't produce the tracks. None of their reasons for believing gods exist work out.

So lets divide gods into two types.

- Class A gods are important, and there are supposed to be reasons to believe in them.
- Class B gods are like Russell's Teapot: not provable and therefore not significant even if true.

The ones that would be provable if they really existed (the problem of evil god comes to mind) are are proven not to exist by the lack of evidence.

The insignificant gods can be dealt with three ways:

- I'll use Jehovah as an example of the first way. The Christians insist that Jehovah is the only god. They stipulate that there are no other gods. Therefore, if it turns out that Jehovah doesn't exist, they are estopped from suddenly reversing themselves to claim that other gods, insignificant gods, exist after all.

- Occam's Razor. There's no reason to posit gods that don't do anything and leave no trace. Reasonable people will presume that such gods---like Russell's teapot---don't exist.

- If a god doesn't do anything, doesn't leave evidence, then it isn't godlike. It isn't what we mean when we use the word "god." Such insignificant gods are nonexistent by definition.

Therefore, since it is reasonable to dismiss insignificant gods out of hand, it follows that the lack of evidence of other gods (the gods that would leave evidence if they existed) is grounds for strong atheism, for believing that there are no gods at all.

[wiploc]

The Parable of the Pawnbroker:

Never heard of this one.

It is my own, a true story.

I think the only thing this parable shows is that the customer is not trustworthy, it does not show that gold chains do not exist.

It was reasonable to form a lightly-held belief that, of however many chains the man might offer me, none of them would be actual gold.

It might not exist in the customer's pocket, but it does not show that a gold chain cannot exist.

I got a lot of gold chains. But I didn't get any from that guy. I didn't expect to get any from that guy. It would have been surprising if I'd gotten a real one from that guy.

The parable even demonstrates this in that the pawnbroker had a test to show if it was a gold chain or not. Having the test reveals that a gold chain can actually exist.

The parable explains why it is reasonable to believe that theists aren't going to offer a good argument for the existence of gods tomorrow, or in the next five thousand years. If they had good arguments, they'd have shared them already.

Yes, I'm open to a good theist argument, but it is reasonable to believe that there are none.

[wiploc]

2. The Presumptive Falsity of Outrageous Claims

This makes the assumption that the existence of god is an outrageous claim. This is not a neutral approach, but shows one is already biased against it. What justification do you have that theism is outrageous? If anything, I would claim that theism is quite normal.

Non-outrageous things exist, but do we think of them as gods? If someone is slower than a speeding bullet, and can leap fire hydrants (but not tall buildings) in a single bound, is she really a god?

Now posit some guy who's invisible. Whoa, dude, that's impressively unlikely. Add in that he's over ten thousand years old, and can never die, and can make a universe without effort, and now you've got something godlike---but presumptively nonexistent.

[Jashwell]

This is only for the people that keep saying God existed before time began.

Premises
1. God existed before time began
2. Something, anything, exists

Intermediary
3. By definition of before & beginning, there is no thing before the beginning of time (the beginning is first)
4. (from 1+3) God is a subset of nothing
5. (from 2) Nothing does not exist

Conclusion
6. God does not exist

God's pretemporal existence entails contradiction

[instantc]

Here is my justification for the belief that no personal creator of the universe exists.

The best way, I think, to assess the truth-value of a claim that is not directly falsifiable is to consider what we could reasonably expect to find, if the claim were true. Suppose, for example, that your friend tells you that the third world war has just started off with bombs flying and people dying all over the world. However, when you wake up in the morning and go to work, everything is normal. People talk about weather, the news are concerned with trivial topics and so forth. You could then reasonably conclude that the third world war has not started, based on the fact that you would expect to see all kinds of signs about it if it were true.

This is not to say that the said claim could be proven to be false in this manner, but rather it can be shown to be very unlikely at face value, thus justifying the belief that the claim is untrue in the absence of any positive counter-evidence.

It is quite easy to conclude that the world certainly is not the way we would expect it to be, if God existed. If there existed a personal creator of the universe who is concerned with our endeavours in the way that most religions portray, we would expect to see certain signs including, but not limited to, the following.

1. We would expect to be able to communicate with the said creator in unambiguous terms and without a lifetime commitment.
2. We would expect the one true religion to be way above the others in terms of knowledge, moral teachings, revelation and so forth.
3. We would expect to have an explanation for all the seemingly gratuitous evil taking place on earth.

[otseng]

Looks like this will be a very interesting thread...

[Replying to post 1 by wiploc]Only one thing. The continual failure for theists to demonstrate the existence of any gods, for the past 6000 years. That is enough for me to shift from weak atheism to strong atheism.

This is shifting the burden. The OP is asking for justification that gods do not exist. Claiming that theism has no valid arguments (which I disagree with) is not justification for atheism. And even if there is NO argument for theism, on your argument alone, it can only lead one to agnosticism, not strong atheism.

Well, you are a strong atheist regarding the existence of Thor and Poseidon I presume? What is your justification for being a strong atheist regarding them?

Well, yes, I am... but so is practically everyone on this planet. So, it's not really an important or relevant issue. Nobody is really arguing for the existence of Thor or Poseidon.

This thread also is not specifying any particular god, but gods in general. Even if you disprove Thor doesn't exist, it does not mean that no gods exist.