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.

[Artie]

Exactly what do you have to replace Christianity?

Why just Christianity? Why not Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc? Two thirds of the world isn't Christian.

What set of moral and ethical standards is better than the ones Christians use, and what makes it better?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ What makes it better is that it is universally applicable and isn't dependent on faith in a certain religion. If everybody on the planet were naturally moral and rational we wouldn't need religions.

[instantc]

... in the days of hunter gatherers, survival in groups were better, which leads to the necessity for stable social relationships, which are complicated by rapes. So groups with lower rates of rape survived better.

This is actually an interesting claim. I wonder whether you are just speculating or do you actually have a reason to believe that this is the case?

[dianaiad]

Y'know, the last few posts have made my case for me better than anything I could possibly say.

Most of you claim that morality is innate/genetic/....something that 'just appears' from the aether. There's no source. It's a magical occurance that people will be moral....

.....unless of course they are theists and then they are innately immoral and need guidelines and standards to live by so that they will know what 'moral' is.

Which of course begs the question of why people who are innately IMMORAL (starting from a 'hole in the ground') would want to find such a set of standards in the first place, but leave that for a bit.

I find myself, in this side conversation, honestly speaking in a foreign tongue. We may be using cognates, so that we think we are understanding each other, but I don't think we are.

Here's what I see:

A bunch of people who have been challenged (as per the topic) to justify a belief that gods do not exist.

Somehow they have managed to morph this into an accusation that theists are only theists because they are so innately, naturally, nasty people that without religious morals and standards, they would be monsters of depravity.

................and yes, I am aware that more than one religious belief system says the same thing. Mine doesn't.

The problem is this; NONE of you have shown me why 'not theist' provides any sort of ethical/moral standard that would be better than every single religious one.

Indeed, history has shown us that when religion is outlawed, the atheistic belief systems that take its place have been, without exception, very, very immoral, nasty and murderous indeed.

In other words, there's nothing about 'getting rid of religion' that would prevent evil, or even mitigate against it. So what would?

One of you mentioned 'the golden rule.'

Which of course is the final irony. Yes, the 'golden rule' is a very practical and simple moral/ethical standard to live by.

And RELIGION gave it to us. Atheists did not. Religions....quite a few of them, as a matter of fact, did.

Someone else gave a humanist set....and pretty much all of the standards, moral and ethical, set out there have been found....and found first, in a religion--except of course for those things which are not standards of behavior, but are rather statements of human rights pretty much lifted wholesale from the US Constitution. Which, frankly, is pretty much all of it.

So what have you got, guys, in the way of ethical/moral standards of behavior that were not first found in some religion somewhere? Really....what?


And how does accusing theists of being immoral because they choose to abide by standards found in a religious belief system justify the belief that gods do not exist?

Please. Educate me on this one, because I'm throwing up my hands here.

[spiritualrevolution]

... in the days of hunter gatherers, survival in groups were better, which leads to the necessity for stable social relationships, which are complicated by rapes. So groups with lower rates of rape survived better.

This is actually an interesting claim. I wonder whether you are just speculating or do you actually have a reason to believe that this is the case?

well, it would be logical that groups with strong social relationships survive better, and people predisposed to rape are like not to be conducive to the group, therefore people may develop natural aversion to rape.

its also possible religion developed the same way.

it is mostly speculation, to prove this we would need to do much experiments in human genetics,

but what alternative would you suggest?

also, NONE of this confirms the inherent "wrongness" of rape, or the truth of religion or the existence of god, etc.

when you come down to the heart of the matter you realize that moral questions are very difficult to answer regardless of belief systems, sometimes with no clear answer, and having no relevance to the existence of god.

[Divine Insight]

Y'know, the last few posts have made my case for me better than anything I could possibly say.

Most of you claim that morality is innate/genetic/....something that 'just appears' from the aether. There's no source. It's a magical occurance that people will be moral....

I'm certainly not included in that group because I don't even believe in objective morality at all. Therefore it makes no sense that morality "just appears" from aether. It certainly doesn't appear anymore mysteriously than human thoughts because that's all it is. Morality is nothing more than a subjective opinion. It's entirely an invention of mankind.

And how does accusing theists of being immoral because they choose to abide by standards found in a religious belief system justify the belief that gods do not exist?

Please. Educate me on this one, because I'm throwing up my hands here.

I don't accuse theists of being immoral. I accuse them of being amoral (i.e. without any moral standards of their own).

If you claim to get your morality from the Bible, then you are in no position to be claiming that the Bible is a moral source. Why not? Because if you need to get your morality from the Bible then you clearly have no idea on your own of what is moral or immoral. Therefore you're not even in a position to say whether the Bible is moral or immoral because you clearly can't know. If you did know, then you'd need to be able to decide what's moral or immoral on your own without the Bible.

Therefore if you need to get your moral values from the Bible you must necessarily be an amoral person without it. Take away the Bible and you have no clue what should be moral or immoral.

That has to be the case if you claim that you need the Bible to know what's moral or immoral.

[Artie]

Most of you claim that morality is innate/genetic/....something that 'just appears' from the aether. There's no source. It's a magical occurance that people will be moral....

It came from evolution of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality Just google "evolution of morality". Amazon.com has over 2000 books on "evolution of morality".

The problem is this; NONE of you have shown me why 'not theist' provides any sort of ethical/moral standard that would be better than every single religious one.

"Theist" doesn't provide any sort of ethical/moral standard. It's the different religions doing that. Just like "not theist" doesn't provide any sort of ethical/moral standard. My standard is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Indeed, history has shown us that when religion is outlawed, the atheistic belief systems that take its place have been, without exception, very, very immoral, nasty and murderous indeed.

ISIS are theists. Have you followed the news lately? Buddhism is an atheistic belief system. In what way is Buddhism immoral, nasty and murderous?

Which of course is the final irony. Yes, the 'golden rule' is a very practical and simple moral/ethical standard to live by.

And RELIGION gave it to us.

Of course not. The opposite. People incorporated it into their religions because it's such a basic evolved moral code that practically everybody agree it's good to follow it no matter what else they might believe religionwise.

[spiritualrevolution]

And how does accusing theists of being immoral because they choose to abide by standards found in a religious belief system justify the belief that gods do not exist?

Please. Educate me on this one, because I'm throwing up my hands here.

I don't accuse theists of being immoral. I accuse them of being amoral (i.e. without any moral standards of their own).

If you claim to get your morality from the Bible, then you are in no position to be claiming that the Bible is a moral source. Why not? Because if you need to get your morality from the Bible then you clearly have no idea on your own of what is moral or immoral. Therefore you're not even in a position to say whether the Bible is moral or immoral because you clearly can't know. If you did know, then you'd need to be able to decide what's moral or immoral on your own without the Bible.

Therefore if you need to get your moral values from the Bible you must necessarily be an amoral person without it. Take away the Bible and you have no clue what should be moral or immoral.

That has to be the case if you claim that you need the Bible to know what's moral or immoral.

[/quote]

Actually, i'm pretty sure all this originated from someone who posted some study which said something like:

religious people are no more moral or immoral than irreligious. They commit an equal number of immoral acts, However, religious people seem to feel more "guilt" than irreligious for the acts.

That was the conclusions from the study as far as i can remember.

It's a study so it must be true!! so

1. Suppose the people who claim that religion improves people's behavior were true.
2. Therefore, the people who are religious, if they "lost" their religion they would commit greater number of immoral acts.
3. Therefore, religious people would have a higher naturally higher rate of immoral acts.
4. Furthermore, people who are irreligious, if they "found" their religion, they would be even better behaved than religious people!

This is probably the thought a lot of people had, which actually is NOT the same as claiming that religious theists are morally depraved, blah blah, etc.

All this derives from the claim that religion is a positive force, and that study.

It's ironic, cause according to that study then, it seems like the atheists/irreligious are the true saints, and if they "found" their religion they'd be like angels...

[spiritualrevolution]

For me this would just be an extension of the Golden Rule which makes perfect sense to me. So rape would fall under the Golden Rule, no need to single it out or address it specifically.

If I remember correctly, I think the golden rule was: treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.

What is the moral justification for the golden rule?

Perhaps following the golden rule produces a more harmonious society.

What is the justification for a harmonious society?

What if society was chaotic, lawless hellhole? So what? Other than "I wouldn't want to live in a society like that", what is the reason for a society like that to be inherently "wrong"?

[dianaiad]

ISIS are theists. Have you followed the news lately? Buddhism is an atheistic belief system. In what way is Buddhism immoral, nasty and murderous?

Artie.

Tu Quoque is a fallacy. Pointing out that some theistic belief systems are also, and have also, been murderous does not excuse, nor change, the fact that every single time religion has been officially outlawed in a nation/state, the belief systems/practices that take the place of atheism have been, without a single exception, murderous and genocidal.

Yes, there HAVE been murderous theistic systems. The Mayans (or was it the Incas?..whichever) were particularly prolific at killing people. Extremist Muslims are,

However, there HAVE been nations with official state religions that were not murderous.

Yes, many atheistic belief systems are not murderous. Many theistic ones are not. The fact remains, however, that in those nations which outright outlawed religion, and thus had to use atheistic standards of behavior in the place of religion, people died, quite literally, by the millions.

Every time.

Which of course is the final irony. Yes, the 'golden rule' is a very practical and simple moral/ethical standard to live by.

What's ironic about that? Except when it is used by atheists as a non-religious ethical standard...and claimed as having somehow been invented by non-theists.

And RELIGION gave it to us.

Of course not. The opposite. People incorporated it into their religions because it's such a basic evolved moral code that practically everybody agree it's good to follow it no matter what else they might believe religionwise.[/quote]

Really?

Prove it. Every single incident and reference that we have to the Golden Rule, in any of its many iterations, have come from a religious source, religious writings, or from a spiritual leader.

But you are quite certain of your claim, I see. Please show us where the Golden Rule existed before, and apart from, any use it had in a religion.

G'head.

[Divine Insight]

For me this would just be an extension of the Golden Rule which makes perfect sense to me. So rape would fall under the Golden Rule, no need to single it out or address it specifically.

If I remember correctly, I think the golden rule was: treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.

What is the moral justification for the golden rule?

Well the whole idea of morality is just a human concept anyway. We invented the concept.

I actually prefer to think of the Golden Rule as "Don't do anything to anyone else that you wouldn't want them to do to you". Especially within the context of a concept like "morality". And then this simply becomes a very practical, logical, and rational morality.

Of course, turning it around and stating it as treating others as you would like to be treated should include not treating them as you would not like to be treated, but it should also encourage acts if altruism and charity in addition to merely not treating them badly.

And that's a good thing too. If everyone did that then we'd all be very pleased.

So again, it's just rational pragmatism. No need to label it as "morality" unless you specifically like that label.

Perhaps following the golden rule produces a more harmonious society.

What is the justification for a harmonious society?

Well you nail this one with your next questions:

What if society was chaotic, lawless hellhole? So what? Other than "I wouldn't want to live in a society like that", what is the reason for a society like that to be inherently "wrong"?

There is no such thing as "inherently wrong". You're trying to bring in a concept of absolute objective morality here.

All that exists are human subjective opinions and you've already nailed it above. "I wouldn't want to live in a society like that". That is precisely what humans mean when they claim that something is more "moral" than something else.

That is the standard of human morality.

It's a totally subjective judgment on life made by humans. For example, for humans there is nothing immoral about swatting a mosquito. Nor would most humans even see using chemical warfare and spraying large numbers of mosquitoes with poison insecticide.

However, if you were a mosquito you're probably think that is a highly immoral act.

Human morality is human-centric for the most part. Humans are capable of feeling empathy for some other animals however. Especially if they are cuddly-looking and cute. Like I say, I don't think there are too many people who are worried about becoming activists for "Mosquito rights".

Human morality is entirely a human concept. We made it up. It's ours to define however we so desire. There is no Santa Claus God who will condemn us to hell if we don't obey some supposedly objective absolute morality.

Even the Biblical fables of God are not consistent in that regard. And this is especially true of Christianity. In the OT it was objectively moral to stone your unruly children to death. I think if anyone stoned their children to death today most Christians would vote to have them prosecuted as murders of their children.

So where is there any absolute morality anyway?