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.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 30 by otseng]

It's a very relevant issue, the same difficulties apply to proving Thor doesn't exist as do to God.

Unless you're suggesting that justification for such a belief lies in the popular absence of contrary beliefs?

[otseng]

Well, because you concede that the Bible may contain contradictions.

To clarify, I was careful to use quotes in contradictions. And I also explained how some contradictions can be resolved.

What's more important for me is truth claims that are logically contradictory with each other. For example, if the Bible had said that the entire world was not created and was eternal, that would be logically contradictory with the scientific claim that the world had a beginning. Or if archaeology disproved the existence of Jesus, then it would contradict the Biblical claim that Jesus existed.

It may contain condemnations by men.

Condemnations, by itself, do not show a contradiction.

It is potentially flawed and imperfect.

Like I said, I actually agree with this. The Bibles we hold in our hands can be flawed. It requires a bit of a more careful reading to discern what is trustworthy. For example, it is widely accepted that Mark 16:9-20 was not written by Mark, but added later. It should then be read with this in mind.

It is easy to see where many people could easily misunderstand what it might be trying to even say.

It's easy to misconstrue the Bible. Things can be misinterpreted, either intentionally or unintentionally.

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.

Again, I fail to see what condemnation has to do with it. You might not personally like to be condemned, but that doesn't show the Bible is contradictory.

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.

Not all Christians believe that the fall caused diseases and natural disasters. Singling out one group's interpretation of the Bible and attacking that does not disprove the entire Bible. If anything, at most it would only disprove that group's interpretation.

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.

Well, generally, yes, that's true.

And it doesn't even matter if we reject evil and embrace high moral ideals.

It's good that people in general reject civl and embrace high ideals. But, the problem is that God requires absolute sinlessness. Even if one person was good their entire lifetime, but just sinned once, it would fall short of God's standard.

If we haven't confessed the Jesus is the only demigod son of God and accept him as our savior we will be damned.

How would this be a contradiction?

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

It's actually not that difficult to understand the Bible. The basic message in it is very simple to grasp, even a child can understand it. But, if someone has the mental capacity to get into the details of the Bible to grasp the contradictions, I believe he/she would also have the ability to dig deeper to go beyond the contradictions.

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.

I find it's often times not the simple and innocent that reject the Bible because of the difficulties in the Bible, but the intellectuals who can perceive the difficulties.

This is why Christian Fundamentalists demand that the Bible is indeed infallible and there can be no excuse for not believing it.

One should not single out a particular form of Christianity and apply it to the whole. It would be better to attack a claim that is widely held by all Christians, not just fundamentalists, Catholics, liberals, Baptists, etc.

If a person can disbelieve in Jesus and still be saved, then the whole point of Christianity is lost.

This is true.

[otseng]

- 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.

For the purposes of this thread, let's limit it to Class A gods. We can throw out Russell's teapot.

[otseng]

The Parable of the Pawnbroker

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.

I think it's prudent for a pawnbroker (or anybody actually) to have this perspective.

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.

Right. So, your parable only shows that the customer was a liar. But, it does not show that gold chains do not 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.

Even if true, this is not justification for strong atheism. It would only be justification for agnosticism. To justify strong atheism, one needs positive arguments in favor of gods not existing.

[Divine Insight]

Otseng, you seem to be supporting a huge contradiction yourself without realizing it.

First allow me to apologize for a previous typo that I made and clarify this point:

Divine Insight wrote:
It may contain [strike]condemnations[/strike] by men.

Condemnations, by itself, do not show a contradiction.

I meant to type "contaminations". You seemed to be agreeing that the Bible could contain contamination or falsehoods written by men.

You seem to be agreeing with this in the following quote:

It is potentially flawed and imperfect.

Like I said, I actually agree with this. The Bibles we hold in our hands can be flawed. It requires a bit of a more careful reading to discern what is trustworthy. For example, it is widely accepted that Mark 16:9-20 was not written by Mark, but added later. It should then be read with this in mind.

My point is that once this is acknowledge that we are free to dismiss anything in the Bible that we feel is less than intelligent. After all, why should we bother attributing something we deem to be unintelligent to a supreme creator when we have already accepted that the Bible may indeed contain flaws and falsehoods?

It is easy to see where many people could easily misunderstand what it might be trying to even say.

It's easy to misconstrue the Bible. Things can be misinterpreted, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Again you seem to be in agreement here as well.

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.

Again, I fail to see what condemnation has to do with it. You might not personally like to be condemned, but that doesn't show the Bible is contradictory.

But the whole point is that this God would be condemning people for merely rejecting things that you have already agreed could be contaminated, potentially false, and easily misunderstood.

How is it morally justified to condemn someone for not believing in things that are neither dependable, nor clear?

It's not that I don't like the idea of being condemned. I'm saying that to condemn people for not believing in something that is neither dependable, nor clear, would be immoral. It would be unjust to condemn people for having made an honest mistake in rejecting the Bible.

And let's not forget the the Muslims are making this very same claim about their Qur'an.

If you believe in Jesus and the Christian Bible then Allah will condemn you for not believing in his last Prophet Muhammad. Is that going to "justice". Will you morally deserve to be damned because you failed to believe in Islam and the Qur'an?

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.

Not all Christians believe that the fall caused diseases and natural disasters. Singling out one group's interpretation of the Bible and attacking that does not disprove the entire Bible. If anything, at most it would only disprove that group's interpretation.

Forget about groups of people. That's irrelevant.

If a person rejects the Bible because it appears to them to be inconsistent with known reality, is it then morally justified for this God to condemn them for not believing in the Bible?

Consider also that they may have a multitude of additional reasons for rejecting it as well.

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.

Well, generally, yes, that's true.

So there you go.

That's the contradiction right there. We now have a God who will condemn people for merely not believing in Christian mythology. But we have already established that there are many of perfectly rational reasons that people could have for not believing in this mythology.

So now we have people being condemned for nothing more than being rational.

And it doesn't even matter if we reject evil and embrace high moral ideals.

It's good that people in general reject civl and embrace high ideals. But, the problem is that God requires absolute sinlessness. Even if one person was good their entire lifetime, but just sinned once, it would fall short of God's standard.

But what are God's standards? No one knows. All we have is a bible that you have already agreed may contain contaminations, falsehoods, and be easily misunderstood.

Moreover, I claim that for a God to hold such an extremely unrealistic standard is already sufficient reason to reject this religion as being absurd. I see no reason to believe that a God would be so unrealistically strict. That just gives me all the more reason to doubt the claims of this religion.

Why should I believe in a God who is so anxious to condemn people?

If we haven't confessed the Jesus is the only demigod son of God and accept him as our savior we will be damned.

How would this be a contradiction?

Because there is no good reason to believe that Jesus was the demigod son of God.

I have no more reason for believing in that fairytale than you have for believing that Muhammad was God's last prophet who corrected the Bible in into the perfect Qur'an and then flew off to heaven on a flying horse.

Why should I be condemned for not believing in Jesus?

You don't believe in Muhammad? Should you be condemned for that?

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

It's actually not that difficult to understand the Bible. The basic message in it is very simple to grasp, even a child can understand it. But, if someone has the mental capacity to get into the details of the Bible to grasp the contradictions, I believe he/she would also have the ability to dig deeper to go beyond the contradictions.

But I have no problem "understanding" the story of the Bible. Understanding the story is not the problem. Believing that the story is true is the problem.

Why should I believe that there is some God sitting on a throne in heaven chomping at the bit to cast me into a hellfire of damnation in the first place?

I would need to buy into that first before the idea that Jesus needs to "save" me from this situation would even begin to make any sense.

Why should I believe that I'm the enemy of my creator? Or that he is out to condemn me? Yet this is what I must first place my faith in before the idea of Jesus can even begin to make any sense at all. And even then it doesn't makes any sense, IMHO.

So it's not that I don't understand the biblical story. It's just that I see no rational reason to believe it. It's making accusations against me that simply aren't true. I have not "turned against" any God, and I don't lust after evil and reject all that is good.

The bible is making claims about me that I simply know are false.

Why should I believe in a story that demands that I believe things about myself that I know for a fact to be untrue?

That makes no sense at all.

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.

I find it's often times not the simple and innocent that reject the Bible because of the difficulties in the Bible, but the intellectuals who can perceive the difficulties.

There is no "sin" or "evil" or immorality in recognizing the absurdities of the Bible.

Why should you believe that you are the enemy of God and that you need to be "saved" from his wrath just because some ancient religions claims this to be the case?

Shouldn't you be able to decide for yourself whether or not you chose to be the enemy of God?

Why do you allow an ancient legend to dictate your relationship with your creator?

I see no reason to fall for that.

I have no bone to pick with any all-righteous God. On the contrary if a truly all-righteous God exists then I have absolutely nothing at all to worry about, precisely the opposite of what Christianity demands.

Christianity demands that fear of God should be my greatest concern.

Why? The only God I would need to fear would be an immoral evil God.

If there exists a truly loving sane God, then I would have no reason to fear God at all. None whatsoever.

But Christianity demands that I must fear their God. And they also demand that I must confess that their demigod Jesus is the only begotten Son of this God that they claim I need to both fear and be "saved" from too boot.

If there exists a truly righteous loving God, why in the world would I need to be "saved" from its horrible wrath?

It makes no sense.

This is why Christian Fundamentalists demand that the Bible is indeed infallible and there can be no excuse for not believing it.

One should not single out a particular form of Christianity and apply it to the whole. It would be better to attack a claim that is widely held by all Christians, not just fundamentalists, Catholics, liberals, Baptists, etc.

And I try to do that in my following statement quote:

If a person can disbelieve in Jesus and still be saved, then the whole point of Christianity is lost.

This is true.[/quote]

And so there we go. Christianity has nothing at all to do with morality or moral values. It is entirely based upon proclaiming Jesus to be the Lord of Lords.

And anyone who fails to believe this is damned.

But we have already established that there are many rational reasons why a person would not believe in Jesus, and that those reasons have absolute nothing at all to do with morality.

~~~~~

And this is why Christianity must necessarily be false. It cannot be based on morality as it claims. It is based entirely on nothing more than a demand that people recognize that Jesus is the Christ. Anything short of that and a person is declared to be a heathen who deserves to be damned.

But that is an untenable position in terms of moral justice.

There can be no justification to support the idea that to not believe in the Jesus myths is an immoral act deserving of damnation. It's simply not a supportable position.

And thus Christianity fails.

It's not a morally justifiable religion.

And so this is how we can know that Christianity cannot be a true religion.

[Artie]

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.

Whether somebody is arguing for the existence of Thor or Poseidon is completely irrelevant and has no bearing on my belief that they don't exist.

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.

Why would I disprove Thor doesn't exist? That would mean that I would prove that he exists. That is what theists should do. If you can prove that a god exists, doesn't matter which god, then you have proven strong atheism wrong.

I know you are stuck between a rock and a hard place and I won't press you further on this issue because you believe in the Bible which must be completely bewildering because on the one hand it says

Mark 12:32
There is one God; and there is none other but he

and on the other hand you have

Exodus 12:12
And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment

Exodus 15:11
Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?

Exodus 18:11
Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods

Psalm 82:1-6
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods. (v.1)
I have said, Ye are gods. (v.6)

And on and on

One justification I have for believing that gods don't exist is that not even the Bible agrees with itself how many gods there are supposed to be.

[Bust Nak]

[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.

We don't have the burden of proof. I am justified to shift to strong atheism exactly because theists have consistently failed to meet their burden of proof. Think of the the boy who cried wolf story, there may in fact be wolfs eating his sheep, but the villagers are well justified to not merely be agnostic with regard to the safety of the sheeps, but actively believe his sheeps are not being attack.

[Artie]

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.

We don't have the burden of proof. I am justified to shift to strong atheism exactly because theists have consistently failed to meet their burden of proof. Think of the the boy who cried wolf story, there may in fact be wolfs eating his sheep, but the villagers are well justified to not merely be agnostic with regard to the safety of the sheeps, but actively believe his sheeps are not being attack.

Your position would then be "agnostic strong atheist" or "agnostic atheist" not just "strong atheist".

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 38 by Artie]
Yep, that's what I would call myself, an agnostic strong atheist; but otseng seem to be treating agnosticism as the same thing as weak atheism, and I am frankly tired of debating which definition should be used.

[dianaiad]

[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.

We don't have the burden of proof. I am justified to shift to strong atheism exactly because theists have consistently failed to meet their burden of proof. Think of the the boy who cried wolf story, there may in fact be wolfs eating his sheep, but the villagers are well justified to not merely be agnostic with regard to the safety of the sheeps, but actively believe his sheeps are not being attack.

In this thread, you do have the burden of proof. I have been reading it, and am quite interested in the posts. Every single one of the posts by non-believers is an attempt to disprove a specific theistic belief...even the parable of the pawnbroker is about that.

As otseng pointed out, that parable only proved that the customer was a liar and that all the chains he presented were 'not-gold.' It did not prove, or even provide evidence for, what the OP asked: proof that gods do not exist.'

Again, as otseng wrote, that parable, far from proving that gold chains do not exist, actually provides evidence that they do: the pawnbroker has a test for it; he has seen real gold chains. He knows the difference. Had gold chains not existed, he would not have had such a test; he would have shown the customer the door before he pulled the first one out of his pocket.

That's what's so interesting about this thread: it is asking for proof that gods do not exist, which is the 'strong' atheistic position; a positive claim: 'there are no gods."

Nobody here has offered any. All that has been offered is evidence/arguments that the religions addressed may not be true...but like those chains, proving each one false does NOT prove that there is no 'true' gold chain out there, and THAT, my friends, is what is being asked here.

So yes, the burden of proof, for this thread, is upon the one who states 'there are no gods."

Not 'I see no reason to believe in gods," but "there aren't any."

How about some?