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.

[KenRU]

OP:

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.

How about the utter lack of miracles? All religions claim miracles (through prayer, etc). Yet never once have we seen the laws of nature broken or suspended.

Sure cancer gets cured all the time by prayer, yet we never hear of a limb growing back? I wonder why?

Just a thought,

Love the thread, wiploc!

[Randall]

Proof that a god or gods do not exist is a difficult thing...just kidding.

I imagine that if any of us were to witness a grown man forcing himself sexually onto a child, that we would intervene (at worst) or more likely kill the perpetrator (at best). If a so called benevolent god(s) exist(s) then how could he allow this sort of thing to occur.

[otseng]

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

This is quite an assumption. I don't think you'll be able to prove this claim.

[wiploc]

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

This is quite an assumption. I don't think you'll be able to prove this claim.

Seems perfectly obvious to me.

If a lawyer used that defense ("He didn't kill the person, but only just the person's body") in a murder case, he'd be punished for contempt of court.

[otseng]

1. There are some gods that theists would be justified in believing in if they existed. They would leave evidence. But that evidence is lacking. Those gods seem not to exist.

So, are you claiming there is zero evidence that has been presented by theists for the existence of God?

And that is my whole argument: we don't believe in god because we don't believe in the Easter bunny. Jupiter and the Easter bunny, Shiva and Santa Claus, Thor and the Great Pumpkin, in each case the reason for disbelief is the same. And those reasons apply with equal strength to Jehovah. Actually, there is an extra reason to disbelieve in Jehovah, but I'll have to come back to that. For now, let it suffice to say that you have just as good a reason to disbelieve in Jehovah as to disbelieve in the Great Pumpkin.

It doesn't matter how many strawmen you tear down; it doesn't strengthen your case. Who's arguing for the existence of the Easter bunny, Jupiter, Santa, Great Pumpkin, etc? Atheists continually claim that no evidence exists for these gods. Well, that's because nobody is arguing that they do exist.

Now, if you want to disprove the existence of Yahweh, then that's a different matter....

[otseng]

How about the utter lack of miracles? All religions claim miracles (through prayer, etc). Yet never once have we seen the laws of nature broken or suspended.

I would disagree that there is a complete lack of miracles, even in modern times. I think what you are asking is why are there not miracles happening all the time? However, I see no requirement that in order for God to exist, miracles must happen all the time.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 66 by otseng]

I think this (among other arguments in the thread) is more along the lines that if God existed, we would expect to have observed at least one reliably documented miracle.

(Similarly for design arguments we would've expected better design, and for suffering arguments we would expect less suffering)


Though I'm curious as to whether this is what wiploc wanted to discuss (i.e. the Gods of major religions) or if he actually wanted proof that no Gods exist. (Including ones that are uninteligent, amoral or simply ambivalent towards human life)

[wiploc]

1. There are some gods that theists would be justified in believing in if they existed. They would leave evidence. But that evidence is lacking. Those gods seem not to exist.

So, are you claiming there is zero evidence that has been presented by theists for the existence of God?

I believe that, yes.

If you'd like to discuss specific apologist arguments, I suggest we start another thread on that topic.

And that is my whole argument: we don't believe in god because we don't believe in the Easter bunny. Jupiter and the Easter bunny, Shiva and Santa Claus, Thor and the Great Pumpkin, in each case the reason for disbelief is the same. And those reasons apply with equal strength to Jehovah. Actually, there is an extra reason to disbelieve in Jehovah, but I'll have to come back to that. For now, let it suffice to say that you have just as good a reason to disbelieve in Jehovah as to disbelieve in the Great Pumpkin.

It doesn't matter how many strawmen you tear down; it doesn't strengthen your case. Who's arguing for the existence of the Easter bunny, Jupiter, Santa, Great Pumpkin, etc? Atheists continually claim that no evidence exists for these gods. Well, that's because nobody is arguing that they do exist.

They aren't strawmen; they are illustrations. You are justified in believing that the Great Pumpkin does not exist. Your reasoning is good. The same reasoning justifies believing that other gods don't exist.

Now, if you want to disprove the existence of Yahweh, then that's a different matter....

Jehovah is the easy case. Things like Russell's Teapot are the hard cases. But I think I have adequately disposed of them.

[instantc]

That's based on the hidden presumption that if God existed, then those who believe in it would be able to prove it's existence. Can you show that the hidden presumption is true?

...

1. There are some gods that theists would be justified in believing in if they existed. They would leave evidence. But that evidence is lacking.

What evidence exactly?

given the parameters of the hypothesis in question. It is up to the claimant to show that such evidence could be expected, you cannot just assert it.

We aren't the ones asserting it.

I'm quite sure that the person I addressed in the above quote was asserting that there should be expected evidence.

Theists aren't saying, "I believe in god for absolutely no reason." No, they are saying, "My belief is well-founded, and," often enough, "the evidence is so obvious that you are a pervert or an idiot for not already agreeing with me."

Even if they are wrong about their belief being properly founded does not, as such, mean that their belief is not true.

Suppose I believe that I have good evidence to show that my neighbor killed my cat. Even if the evidence I gathered turns out to be irrelevant does not automatically mean that my neighbor did not kill my cat.

[Zzyzx]

.

There are some gods that theists would be justified in believing in if they existed. They would leave evidence. But that evidence is lacking.

What evidence exactly?

ANY evidence more substantial than unverified testimonials, unverified claims, unverified stories, unverified opinions and conjecture. What do you (generic term) have to offer?