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]

[Replying to post 397 by otseng]

Yeah, it pretty obviously refers to the sky and the ground.
Not the atmosphere or the planet beyond just the crust.

Just like how it refers to the lights in the sky. Not to the stars.

No, it does not just mean the atmosphere, but can include the entire universe.

Heaven is shamayim. The definition can be:
- heaven, heavens, sky
- visible heavens, sky
- as abode of the stars
- as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
- Heaven (as the abode of God)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex ... 8064&t=KJV

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 401 by otseng]

I did say "not the atmosphere", because it is reasonable to believe that the storytellers of genesis did not have that in mind. Nor the actual Earth. Nor the Sun, beyond the mere image.

Genesis tries to tell us how the bright dots in the sky and the two big circles in the sky form, as well as how the earth, sea and visible life were formed.

Not how the atmosphere was formed, not how life in general was formed, not how the planet was formed, not how the stars were formed, and not how the Universe was formed.

If it weren't for the fact that it was believed to be a revelation, if you had merely seen the genesis creation story and knew it was written over 2000 years ago, would you believe that it referred to the beginning of the Universe as we know it, or to the beginning of the world as the people 2000 years ago (barely) knew it?

[wiploc]

Let me just ask you this. Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between the definitions of objective evil and subjective evil?

If I remember correctly, you mentioned something about objective evil not being possible without a god. So I asked you to explain.

We're after your explanation, so we'll have to let you set the definition. There's no point in asking me to guess what definitions you want to use.

So, in answer to your question, I'm happy to accept whichever answer you prefer.

[Divine Insight]

What makes something believable is to investigate the claims and see if it lines up with evidence. The Bible makes the claim that the universe had a beginning.

Isn't this something that all "Creation Myths" have in common?

Possibly. Even if this is true, how would it affect things?

Well, if you're using this for "evidence" that the Bible lines up with evidence (i.e. that the universe had a beginning) it's not very impressive evidence since this would be evidence for every creation story ever told.

It seems to me that if you're serious about evidence why would you even bother looking to science for confirmation of the Bible?

Why not think entirely from a theological point of view?

I mean, when I was a Christian I also studied the sciences. I was aware of Evolution, the Big Bang, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc. None of that caused me to question the Bible. Contrary to what many people may think from my posts on these forums I actually gave the Bible extreme abstraction and freedom to be interpreted in a non-literal fashion.

It wasn't scientific knowledge that caused me to realize the Bible can't be true.

I was more than prepared to accept all manner of abstractions from the Bible.

I had no problem allowing for the 6 days of creation to actually be 6 billion years or even 60 billion years. I didn't matter to me. I could see that.

I had no problem allowing that God created mankind via evolution and the literal description that "God created Adam from the Dust of the Earth", actually meant that he did this via a process of evolution.

I didn't even have a problem that God may have created man from the apes. That wasn't a problem either. I allowed for all manner of extreme abstractions.

What broke the camels back for me were far more related to the theological stories, as well as like Mother Teresa I wasn't feeling any "Holy Spirit" or the presence of Jesus. And that harder I looked through the Bible to find "divine insight" I actually found just the opposite. Always. Without fail. And in the early going I was actually trying very hard to make excuses for the Bible.

I finally realize that it's futile. And I think the important thing to realize here is that I wasn't merely trying to convince myself that the Bible was true. I might have been able to fool myself into believing that one. Instead, I was looking to teach the "Word of God" to people in a way that it could be understood with certainly, clarity, and without ambiguity. No excuses. No saying, "We just need to have faith". Or "Perhaps God can explain that one later after we die and go to heaven".

None those excuses would do. If I am to teach this Gospel to other people it must be rock solid and need no excuses. And it was with that conviction that I realized that it truly is impossible. And once I realized that it is impossible for me to convince someone else that the Bible is true with any unambiguous certainty, I suddenly realized that there's no reason why I should be believing it either.

And that's why I truly "Woke up" and asked myself the most important question of all. "Why am I trying so hard to save the Bible?"

Is it because I truly believe in it? Clearly not.

Is it because I fear that if I don't support it I might be cast into hell? No, I don't buy into that one either.

So why should I bother to "Keep the Faith?" That seemed to be the most important thing in Christianity. Keep the faith at all cost!

But then I asked, "Faith in what?"

Just look at the Biblical story. It claims that all of humanity fell from grace from our creator and we're all in the doghouse with our creator and that we have a dire need to get back in good with him lest we be damned.

To begin with I ask myself, "Do I even feel this way?" No I don't. I'm not at odds with any God, that's baloney. Here I am trying to make this stupid religion work and it turns out to be absurdly impossible (proven also by the countless disagreeing sects and denominations of this religion, not just Christianity, but all the Abrahamic offshoots). In short, no one can make this religion work in any way that is truly convincing. So I'm not even alone in this.

I'm not the enemy of any "All Righteous God". Are you kidding me? If there was a righteous God he wouldn't have created such a hellish religion as this.

Moreover, let's assume that I place my FAITH in the idea that I am in the doghouse with this God. Is that the end of it? No. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Now I need to place my faith in the idea that this God had to have his only begotten son brutally beaten and crucified to pay for my rebellion and refusal to obey this God.

What?

Here I am trying to make sense out of this utterly stupid and highly self-contradicting Bible in the hopes of helping everyone come to understand the wonderfully beautiful righteous nature of this God, yet here I am being asked to place my FAITH in the idea that this God had to have his son crucified to pay for my rebellion against him and my refusal to obey him.

That's utter hogwash. This God could have asked for a more sincere preacher to preach his word, yet look at how he treats me. He gives me a book that if filled with horrible absurdities, self-contradictions, and horrible accusations against all of mankind.

It's ridiculous. Why should I even remotely want to place my FAITH in that?

I want to place my faith in a religion that claims that I'm basically God's worst enemy?

Hogwash.

If God's seeking a friend in mankind he would be hard-pressed to find someone who is as sincere and honest as I am in wanting to seek all that is righteous and just.

This religion is as fake as it can be Otseng.

It can only be an underhanded and immoral religious paradigm created by men. And I'm not even saying that people like Jesus had a hand in it. As far as I'm concerned, Jesus was probably a Jew who was not at all unlike me. He was fed up with the hate garbage of religion and he tried to do something about it. He tried to teach higher moral values. But he failed miserably. Instead of succeeding to convince his fellow Jews to love one another he ended up being used as fodder to create a religion that just uses his name to degrade and belittle everyone who doesn't follow the cult that was created in his name.

Jesus had no more to do with the God of the Old Testament than I do.

Jesus actually renounced many of the same things that I renounce.

You don't need science to know that the Bible is not the word of any God.

Jesus may have had some good ideas. But he was no demigod, and he most certainly wasn't the virgin born son of the God of Abraham.

You don't need science to see that the Bible is false as it can be.

[FarWanderer]

What makes something believable is to investigate the claims and see if it lines up with evidence. The Bible makes the claim that the universe had a beginning.

Yeah. It also claims the earth was made before the stars.

Yeah, one day science will catch up on that one too.

Exactly how much do you really believe that and how much are you just being facetious?

[wiploc]

Yes, to be totally consistent in a secular worldview, there can be no such thing as objective evil.

In case people misunderstand me, I'm not saying that objective evil does not exist in a religious worldview.

This is a claim. I ask again for a justification of the claim.

[Divine Insight]

Yes, to be totally consistent in a secular worldview, there can be no such thing as objective evil.

I agree with this completely. I just don't see where it's a problem. I don't see anything in this universe the indicates that the concept of "evil" is anything other than an entirely fabricated concept created by humans.

I also hold that we so absolutely no evidence for any "objective morality" in the universe.

Is there anything in nature that even remotely suggest that "objective morality" is built into the universe?

Animals have naturally eaten each other and the babies of other animals. No morality there of any kind.

Many animals even fight with each other of their own kind for territory, food, or matting rights. Again, no morality there.

Disease and parasites appear to inflict their harm upon anything they come in contact with. No morality there.

Natural forces like volcanoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and so on occur with total abandon killing anything that gets in their path. No indication of morality there.

Where do we see any morality in the universe at all?

About the only place we can even claim to see any morality at all is in humans. And even they argue among themselves over what they deem to be moral or immoral. So we don't even see any consistency there.

As far as I can see morality (and any concept of evil) is entirely a human fabrication and is clearly even highly subjective among humans.

There is absolutely no indication in this universe for any "objective evil" or "objective morality".

On the contrary, it's crystal clear that the whole concept is entirely the invention of humans.

So I agree. In a secular universe there is no such thing as "objective evil" or "objective morality". We humans invented these ideals and its up to us to define them. They are entirely subjective. This doesn't mean that they aren't useful or that they have no value to humans. Clearly they do. But that's no reason to reject the fact that humans invented this ideal.

Morality is a human invention, a human concept, and a human ideal.

The sooner we acknowledge this and recognized it the better off we'll be. Because until then who's running the ship? Ancient cultures that wrote highly misogynistic mythologies?

That's scary!

As a human I flatly reject ancient Hebrew morality. IMHO, it actually represents barbaric immorality. I refuse to give it my support.

[wiploc]

Yes, to be totally consistent in a secular worldview, there can be no such thing as objective evil.

I agree with this completely. I just don't see where it's a problem.

It baffles me, and nobody will explain it. The fact that, over decades of asking, I can't get an explanation, makes me suspect that it's bunk.

I don't see anything in this universe the indicates that the concept of "evil" is anything other than an entirely fabricated concept created by humans.

Of course.

You put it in quotes, to indicate that you're talking about the word, not the thing itself. So of course, since you are talking about language, it is fabricated by language users.

But that's not the real topic of discussion, is it. We use "rocks" to refer to rocks, but the rocks are objectively there even though "rocks" is fabricated by humans.

Is that analogous to the situation with "evil" and evil? This depends on what the word signifies. I generally use it to refer to unhappiness and the causes thereof. These exist regardless of what you think about that. Therefore, this is an objective kind of evil.

If you use the word to refer to something subjective, then evil can be subjective.

So the issue is what the word "evil" refers to. It can refer to objective facts. In which case, evil is objective.

And you don't need gods to use "evil" in that way.

If you use "evil" to mean "something that I really strongly disprove of," then of course evil is subjective. And the existence of gods won't change that.

Gods don't have anything to do with it either way.

I also hold that we so absolutely no evidence for any "objective morality" in the universe.

Is there anything in nature that even remotely suggest that "objective morality" is built into the universe?

Animals have naturally eaten each other and the babies of other animals. No morality there of any kind.

Many animals even fight with each other of their own kind for territory, food, or matting rights. Again, no morality there.

Disease and parasites appear to inflict their harm upon anything they come in contact with. No morality there.

Natural forces like volcanoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and so on occur with total abandon killing anything that gets in their path. No indication of morality there.

Where do we see any morality in the universe at all?

About the only place we can even claim to see any morality at all is in humans. And even they argue among themselves over what they deem to be moral or immoral. So we don't even see any consistency there.

What would consistency have to do with it?

...

So I agree. In a secular universe there is no such thing as "objective evil" or "objective morality".

A secular universe would be one without gods, right? What do gods have to do with it?

We humans invented these ideals and its up to us to define them. They are entirely subjective. This doesn't mean that they aren't useful or that they have no value to humans. Clearly they do. But that's no reason to reject the fact that humans invented this ideal.

Morality is a human invention, a human concept, and a human ideal.

The sooner we acknowledge this and recognized it the better off we'll be. Because until then who's running the ship? Ancient cultures that wrote highly misogynistic mythologies?

That's scary!

What's scary about it? Got something against misogyny? Is misogyny wrong in any objective sense? Or is it merely a matter of esthetics, and yours cannot possibly be better or more right than anyone else's?

As a human I flatly reject ancient Hebrew morality. IMHO, it actually represents barbaric immorality. I refuse to give it my support.

Wouldn't your morality seem barbaric to them? How are we to choose between two moralities?
If it's simply a matter of preference, then why should anyone want to be moral?

[KenRU]

[Replying to otseng]

In science, making an assumption and making a prediction is not splitting hairs.
Citing that science will never have an answer and opting to believe in a supernatural cause, is hardly a scientific response.

Yes, you're mistaken.
Please explain how. If you're wrong and science does provide an explanation down the road, how would this not be a God of the Gaps scenario.

Then why should anyone accept "I don't know" as a satisfactory answer to the origin of the universe?
Because, "I don't know" is not the same as guessing or hoping. And, it certainly doesn't require the belief in something without evidence.

-All the best,

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 400 by otseng]

I suppose you are implying some religious text. So far, I've limited myself to just the argument of the origin of the universe for justification for a creator god. Not much religious text is required for that argument.
Incorrect.

You said: What I'm referring to is not just religious texts, but any texts - history books, science books, novels, etc. My point is that just because something is written by man, that by itself does not mean what it contains is either true or false.

I said: Fair point. But what texts do you consider supportive evidence to justify a belief in a supernatural cause? I would have thought the evidence would have yielded different results.

I'm assuming this means you have evidence to support your assertion. Was I wrong?

The bible makes many erroneous claims as well. Shouldn't that be considered as well when justifying a leap to supernatural creator?
In due time we can address those.
Riiight.

What would be the goalpost?
I've already addressed this.