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.

[Divine Insight]

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?

Yes, I agree that my own personal view that misogyny is disgusting and should not be supported is indeed a personal subjective opinion on my part. It has no objective reality.

In fact, we know that this is the truth. There are many men who condone, support, and practice misogyny. Many of them actually do so for religious reasons. And of course the Old Testament supports misogyny beginning with the story of Adam and Eve. God commands that Adam shall rule over his wife and that her desire shall be to him. That misogyny right there. Not to merely be cruel toward women, but to not trust them or give them equal respect is also misogyny. So the Biblical God condones and has even commanded that men should be misogynistic toward their wives.

So clearly my views against misogyny are indeed subjective and come entirely from me. They are indeed my views and options. You are free to disagree that misogyny is undesirable or wrong in any way.

I cannot prove that misogyny is objectively wrong. I can only offer that in my subjective view I refuse to condone it.

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?

What do you mean when you ask, "why should anyone want to be moral?"

What do you mean by moral? Are you suggesting that there is some absolute morality?

If my subjective sense of morality seems barbaric to other people I can't help that. I can only offer my views on what I feel is the best course of action or behavior.

Other people can either agree with me and respect women as being respectable sovereign beings worthy of egalitarian rights, or they can be misogynistic in their views and behavior.

I can't force people to accept my sense of morality.

But I can support the sovereignty of women and advocate egalitarian rights.

I can also argue on grounds of pure logic and reason why I feel that it only makes intelligent sense to respect the sovereignty of women. So I can actually offer purely secular reasoning why my sense of morality also equates to being intelligent.

IMHO, misogyny is stupid. And since the Biblical God himself supports misogyny I have no choice but to conclude that Hebrew mythology is also stupid.

But in the end I confess that all of this is my subjective opinion and views. Clearly there are many misogynistic evangelists who would curse me as being rebellious against the directives and will of their misogynistic God.

There's nothing much I can do about that other than to hope that someday they will realized that Hebrew mythology has nothing to do with any real God.

[Divine Insight]

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?

Yes, I agree that my own personal view that misogyny is disgusting and should not be supported is indeed a personal subjective opinion on my part. It has no objective reality.

In fact, we know that this is the truth. There are many men who condone, support, and practice misogyny. Many of them actually do so for religious reasons. And of course the Old Testament supports misogyny beginning with the story of Adam and Eve. God commands that Adam shall rule over his wife and that her desire shall be to him. That misogyny right there. Not to merely be cruel toward women, but to not trust them or give them equal respect is also misogyny. So the Biblical God condones and has even commanded that men should be misogynistic toward their wives.

So clearly my views against misogyny are indeed subjective and come entirely from me. They are indeed my views and options. You are free to disagree that misogyny is undesirable or wrong in any way.

I cannot prove that misogyny is objectively wrong. I can only offer that in my subjective view I refuse to condone it.

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?

What do you mean when you ask, "why should anyone want to be moral?"

What do you mean by moral? Are you suggesting that there is some absolute morality?

If my subjective sense of morality seems barbaric to other people I can't help that. I can only offer my views on what I feel is the best course of action or behavior.

Other people can either agree with me and respect women as being respectable sovereign beings worthy of egalitarian rights, or they can be misogynistic in their views and behavior.

I can't force people to accept my sense of morality.

But I can support the sovereignty of women and advocate egalitarian rights.

I can also argue on grounds of pure logic and reason why I feel that it only makes intelligent sense to respect the sovereignty of women. So I can actually offer purely secular reasoning why my sense of morality also equates to being intelligent.

IMHO, misogyny is stupid. And since the Biblical God himself supports misogyny I have no choice but to conclude that Hebrew mythology is also stupid.

But in the end I confess that all of this is my subjective opinion and views. Clearly there are many misogynistic evangelists who would curse me as being rebellious against the directives and will of their misogynistic God.

There's nothing much I can do about that other than to hope that someday they will realized that Hebrew mythology has nothing to do with any real God.

[otseng]

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.

Sure, the Bible doesn't give specifics about how they were 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?

No, I'm not stating that the writers of the Bible had any knowledge of current cosmology. And of course, they had a very limited understanding of the universe. My point is only that the Bible states that there was a beginning, not that it has a detailed description of the origin of the universe.

[otseng]

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.

Objective evil would be something that would be considered universally evil. It does not matter what people thought about it (even if people thought it was acceptable); it would be still be evil. For example, exterminating innocent people in the gas chambers would be evil (even if the people doing it thinks it is acceptable). Or another example, forced sterilization of people who do not consent to being sterilized would be evil (even if it is approved of by the Supreme Court).

Subjective evil is considered evil that is dependent on a person, group, society. It doesn't apply universally. Things can be evil at one time, and then be considered good at another time. It all depends on what society accepts at that time. For example, at one time it was considered really bad to date/marry interracially. Now, it's not considered bad.

[Divine Insight]

Things can be evil at one time, and then be considered good at another time.

I agree. And this is in fact, why I suggest that the Bible cannot be representative of objective morality. The Old Testament command people to stone to death their unruly children. But no one today believes that this would be a moral thing to do.

It also commands that a man should be stoned to death for so much as collecting wood on the Sabbath. So if that represents objective morality then it must still be true today.

There are actually quite many things in the Old Testament that most modern people would not support as being moral.

Jesus himself rejected the Old Laws of the Old Testament in favor of what he considered to be higher moral behavior.

The Old Testament says:

Deuteronomy 19:
[19] Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
[20] And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
[21] And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

According to the Old Testament we are to put the evil away from among us and our eyes shall not pity.

That's the objective morality of the Old Testament.

But then Jesus comes along and teaches:

Matthew 5:
[38] Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


Here Jesus is referring directly to the teachings from the Old Testament of "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But he rejects that and teaches instead to not resist these evil people but to turn to them the other cheek.

These are extreme opposites. One demands that we put evil people away from among us and have no pity on them, yet Jesus teaches precisely the opposite morality of ignoring evil people and mere turning to them the other cheek.

So which is the "Objective Morality"?

You can't do both. One is moral and the other is immoral. And they both come from the Bible. So the Bible does not contain objective morality. Even it changes morality over time.

I think the same is true of the actions of God. The first time God deals with the sins of mankind in the OT he simply drowns everyone. Was that the moral thing to do?

If so then why does he change in the NT and sacrifice his only begotten son to save mankind from their sins? Which one is the moral thing to do? And why isn't this God being consistent in his own objective morality?

[otseng]

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.

Except for the "scientific ones" that accepted an eternal universe prior to the Big Bang model.

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?

It doesn't have to be either/or. Some things can be viewed from a scientific point of view, some things from a theological point of view, some even both.

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.

I don't think everything in the Bible needs to be clear. But, as long as the basic message of the Bible is clear, it is enough.

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.

Yes, I get you have a problem with this (which you have expressed numerous times).

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

Hmm, you'll have to point to where in the Bible it says that you are God's worst enemy.

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.

I can sympathize with this, though I don't completely agree with it. I think the church now (and even in the past), has been far away from what Jesus really wanted it to be.

[otseng]

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?

I'm half serious and half joking. Actually, currently I do believe the "earth" was made before the stars. But, I don't think science will actually ever accept that.

[otseng]

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.

Let's agree on the definitions first.

[otseng]

[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.

I never claimed that a supernatural cause is a scientific answer. The only thing I claimed is that making an assumption and making a prediction is not splitting hairs.

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.

You stated:
"Well, perhaps I'm mistaken, but the parts of god (properties) that are proven to be false by science, would most certainly be falsifiable. What's left becomes non-falsifiable ... for the time being."

Before I go about showing how you're mistaken, exactly what properties of god are proven to be false by science?

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.

If something was contrary to evidence or lacked any evidence, it would be guessing or hoping. But in the case of God, the evidence is that there was a temporal beginning to the universe.

[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.

Let's agree on the definitions first.

Fine. What are the definitions?