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.

[Bust Nak]

In this thread, you do have the burden of proof.

Do we? We are still talking about what beliefs here. It doesn't take much to move from, "I don't believe you" to "I believe otherwise." And it's quite easy to justify why I believe otherwise, because of the continual failure to convince me.

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.

That is to be expected, as atheism exists entirely on the claims of theism. If there are no specific theistic beliefs, atheism wouldn't 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.

Only the concept of gold chain need existing before we can test for it. Had the concept of gold chains not existed, there would't be any test for it. If the pawn broker not been aware of goal chains, the reaction shouldn't be showing the customer the door, it would be to ask, "oh? what's a gold chain?"

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

How about some?

It's just going to be a rewording of the same theme I am afraid. Absence of evidence, is evidence of absence because we are expecting evidence. Not having reaons to believe in gods, when they ought to be, is reason to believe there aren't any.

[Mr.M]

Any argument that claims; "there is a god(s)" is fallacious (at the least) because;

1.Argument from ignorance—there is no verifiable proof; no one can know or prove god is real.

2.Circular reasoning—everything is here because god(s) put it here including him/herself.

3.False dilemma—there is something rather than nothing, "either god made it or it wouldn’t be here." leaves out the possibility that there is a natural occurrence that gave rise to the universe.

4.Onus probandi –the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim. Being an atheist is a neutral position to the argument “god is real�

5.Reification–the assertion “god is real� is vague and proof-less but is still turned into religions that we must all entertain and suffer under or as a result of.

Every theistic religion is guilty of these (at the least) as well;

1.False attribution –holy books and relics claim to be proof of god when they cannot be since no human can prove god is real.

2.False authority –my god is real and he says obey him/her/them.

3.Onus probandi –the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim

As a result of these fallacies (at the minimum) there is no good reason or proof to believe the claims and for me they give rise to sets of anti-human practices and immoral violations that constitute an increasing level of atrocity.

[wiploc]

In this thread, you do have the burden of proof.

Granted.

I have been reading it, and am quite interested in the posts.

Cool.

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.

No, we've had several generic disproofs. For instance,

- If you aren't weird enough to be presumptively non-existent, then you aren't weird enough to be a god.

That's aimed at just about any claim that theists want to make.

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.'

A gold chain would be analogous to a good argument. I reasonably believed that I wouldn't get a gold chain from that gentleman, just as I reasonably believe that I won't get a good argument for believing in god from a theist.

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.

Nobody's saying that good arguments don't exist. They just don't support believing in gods.

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."

And it has delivered.

Nobody here has offered any.

That's not a reasonable claim in the circumstances. We have candidly explained why we believe that god-claims are false.

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.

If I tell you I have a friend who is ten thousand feet tall, you will reasonably believe that I don't. If you tell me that you have a friend who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and coexists with evil, then I will know you are wrong.

Theism, unless it is a pointless denatured theism ("I believe in a tiny little god who doesn't do anything, and doesn't leave any tracks, so there is absolutely no reason for me to believe in him") makes extraordinary claims that are presumptively false. (Your friend might be able to press five hundred pounds. But is he actually omnipotent? Nah.)

Aside from the logical contradictions, we do well to leave ourselves open to persuasion, even when the claims seem outrageous. But the behavior of theists, as illustrated by the parable of the gold chains, persuades us that no good arguments in favor of gods will be forthcoming.

That leaves us with two kinds of theistic claims.

- There are the outrageous claims that are presumptively false, and which we reasonably believe will never be effectively supported.

- There are the defensive retrenchment claims like, "You haven't searched behind every molecule in the universe. There could be something out there somewhere, and it it could have some characteristics, and I can call it a god if I want to."

The first category stands refuted by its own patent absurdity.

The second category is sterile, uninteresting, pointless, simply not what we mean by the word "god."

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

Right. Granted. And that burden has been handsomely met.

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

The way rational people treat Paul Bunyan's big blue ox is the way rational people treat gods and fairies.

How about some?

Been there, done that.

If your claim falls into the second category ("Julius Caesar and the Pharaohs were gods, and they really existed. Little piles of rocks are gods, and little piles of rocks really exist.") it isn't interesting because it isn't what we're talking about.

If your claim falls into the first category ("My invisible friend is able to do anything at all, but he still can't defeat iron chariots") then most rational people (rational on that topic) believe it to be false.

You can't ask fairer than that.

[wiploc]

4.Onus probandi –the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim. Being an atheist is a neutral position to the argument “god is real�

This thread is about strong atheism, the belief that gods do not exist.

Strong atheism is not a neutral position.

[otseng]

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.

If "less than intelligent" means having an objective method to decide it, I'd go along with it. But, if it's just a personal opinion that it's less than intelligent, then I would not.

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?

I do not hold the view that it is either entirely flawless or that it is entirely flawed. Many things have flaws and falsehoods in them, but that does not mean we should reject them outright. This includes the Bible.

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

Like I said, the basic message of the Bible is clear. If the Bible was incomprehensible, then sure, I'd agree that it would be wrong to hold people accountable to something that nobody could comprehend.

There are parts of the Bible that can be argued to be corrupted by man. But, on the whole, it does not affect much the main message of the Bible. I already mentioned the largest section of the Bible that is suspect, the ending of Mark. Even if one throws this section out, it does not really affect any doctrine (unless one is a snake handler).

I'm saying that to condemn people for not believing in something that is neither dependable, nor clear, would be immoral.

I would disagree that it's not dependable, nor clear.

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

I'll let the Muslim participants defend their own book.

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?

Actually, it doesn't really matter to me -- I don't subscribe to Islam beliefs. So, I don't need to be concerned about what they think.

Could Islam be true and Christianity false? Could what I follow be all in vain and I'll be thrown into hell when I die by Allah? It's a possibility, but since I believe Christianity is more tenable than Islam, I really don't even worry about it.

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?

I'm not sure it's irrelevant. The example you brought up is only believed by some, particularly fundamentalist Young-Earth Christians. It is not representative of all of Christianity.

But we have already established that there are many of perfectly rational reasons that people could have for not believing in this mythology.

I fail to see those perfectly rational reasons. You've mentioned problems with the beliefs of certain Christians, but it does not mean all of Christianity is problematic.

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.

Throughout the Bible, God is described as a God that demands holiness and perfection. This message is clear in the Bible.

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.

It would be absurd if it stopped there and all people had no chance at all to be with God. But, it's not absurd because he did provide a way for us to be perfect.

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

How do you know God is anxious to condemn people?

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

I think there are good reasons, but it's beyond the scope of this thread.

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.

Yes.

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?

Where does it say this in the Bible?

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

Really, the main claim is that we're all sinful. Do you believe this is false?

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.

If God is all-righteous, and we are unrighteous, then I think there is something to worry about.

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.

One's salvation has nothing to do with how good one is. But, the Bible does exhort believers to be good and moral.

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.

What/whose moral justice are you referring to?

[otseng]

Why would I disprove Thor doesn't exist?

This thread is not about Thor, but about the general claim that no gods at all exist. This is what you need to provide justification for.

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 …

Actually, it's not too hard to answer this, but it's not relevant to this thread.

[otseng]

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.

OK, I'll take it then that you have no arguments/evidence that gods do not exist.

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

I would agree with this.

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.

I don't want to debate semantics either. The point is that if you have no valid arguments that gods do not exist, then you fail to justify the belief of atheism.

[DanieltheDragon]

OK here is my proof against theism!!!!

______________________________________________________

definition of gods: A supernatural being that consciously effects the physical world.
______________________________________________________
1. Life exists as a biological process observable in the natural world

2. consciousness is a bi-product of a living system

3. gods don't exist as physical entities in the natural world

4. gods are not living systems

6. Since gods are not living systems they are not conscious

7. since gods are neither alive or conscious they do not exist

[instantc]

2. consciousness is a bi-product of a living system

Can you explain what this means and show it to be true?

[wiploc]

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.

OK, I'll take it then that you have no arguments/evidence that gods do not exist.

Or you could assume that he thinks theism inherently involves some extraordinary claims. In the absence of support, extraordinary claims are presumptively false.

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

I would agree with this.

"Not just strong atheist"? He may be an agnostic strong atheist, but we don't require everyone to attach "gnostic" or "agnostic" to their self-identification.

"You can call yourself a gnostic Catholic or an agnostic Catholic, but it is error just to call yourself a Catholic."