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.

[instantc]

It's a shame we don't have any way to determine whether that is more reasonable, or whether the idea that the man simply stabbed the victim is more reasonable.

Who has argued that?

Brains can't account for minds if souls alone do. It's one or the other. Brains are more reasonable.

Why can't it be both?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 91 by instantc]

That was rhetoric. The way to distinguish is parsimony. Occam's razor. There's no sense multiplying entities by adding in aliens, blood extraction and abduction.


I said both can't be the explanation, not both can't be in the explanation.

[KenRU]

[Replying to otseng]

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.
So, miracles happen? Please provide evidence.

No, I'm not asking why they don't happen all the time. I'm asking for one (just one) verifiable piece of evidence for the occurrence of a miracle.

The complete lack of miracles (in any form from any religion) is a pretty substantial argument against religion, and consequently a personal god.

-All the best

[Bust Nak]

I cannot tell if you are being serious or not. So you suggest that there is no God (a personal creator of the universe) due to the fact that Christians are not immune to rat poison?

I am of course referring to Mark 16:9-20 in the Bible, and the splitting of the moon in the Quran. How serious I am, depends on how serious a particual theist takes those accounts. Either way, every religion I am aware of, have dogmas that ought to leave evidence.

Because everything that have an effect in nature, can in principle be detectable scientifically.

I don't find the truth of this claim to be apparent, so you'd have to justify this claim to me.

I thought it obvious. An effect in nature can be defined as a change from one state to another. Isn't it obvious that a change can be detected by comparing the before and after state?

[wiploc]

Okay, let's call a halt to this tangent.

This thread is for listing the various arguments that strong atheists use to justify strong atheism.

Let's not go on and on about parsimony and whether one person accepts one argument.

[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?

I believe that, yes.

I suspect the issue is what you would consider acceptable evidence for God.

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

I barely have time to even participate in one thread. When this thread is done, that is a possibility.

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.

To show that they aren't strawmen, you'll have to show who actually believes they exist in this thread.

[otseng]

Example: A universe containing an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god would have no evil.

If you are bringing up the problem of evil, I'll address that in depth later.

[otseng]

No, I'm not asking why they don't happen all the time. I'm asking for one (just one) verifiable piece of evidence for the occurrence of a miracle.

If I do, I'm afraid it's going to derail the thread. I suspect the issue would be what constitutes a miracle. A miracle for one person could just be a I-don't-know-how-it-happened for another.

[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.

I suspect the issue is what you would consider acceptable evidence for God.

I'll be happy to discuss it.

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

I barely have time to even participate in one thread. When this thread is done, that is a possibility.

Cool.

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.

To show that they aren't strawmen, you'll have to show who actually believes they exist in this thread.

If I was claiming you believed in the Easter bunny, it would be a straw man.

[Divine Insight]

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.

I think you're missing my position here.

I'm not suggesting that the story of the Bible is not clear. I'm asking how it is morally justifiable to condemn someone for not believing that the Bible is dependably from any God?

I understand that the Bible is claiming that we are all sinners and that God can't deal with sin.

But what I'm saying is, "Why should anyone believe that the Bible speaks for any God?"

Just because I can understand a fairytale or a philosophy doesn't make it true.

I understand Taoism too. Does that mean that I should believe in Taoism?

I understand Islam too. Does that mean that I should believe in Islam?

Surely you understand that story of Islam too. Therefore you are without excuse for not believing in Islam just as you would be without excuse for not believing in Christianity.

Just because you understand a story doesn't mean that it has to do with any God.

Why should I accept a book like the Bible that, IMHO, has their God character doing all manner of unwise and immoral things?

The story may be "clear" but it's certainly not a convincing story.