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]

Third challenge.

Prove that the golden rule existed before, and apart from any use it had in a religion.

For me this is unimportant for the following reasons.

1. It wouldn't matter where the golden rule originated from it is still a clearly logical and rational concept that follows naturally from a purely secular rationale.

2. It certainty predated Christianity. The golden rule was expressed by Buddha, Lao Tzu, and Confucius to be sure. And I do believe that Confucianism was indeed a secular philosophy.

For me the golden rule is just a natural consequence of reality. If you want to expect to be treated a certain way by other people then it only makes logical sense that you treat them by that same standard. It makes absolutely no logical sense to expects that you should be able to treat others badly whilst simultaneously expecting them to only treat you in ways that you like.

So in short, there is no need to imagine a God or a higher power to see the logical rational in the golden rule. It really doesn't even need to be seen in terms of "morality". It just makes logical sense that you shouldn't treat others in a way that you would not want to be treated yourself. That's just pure common sense. No religion required, and no concept of morality even needs to be evoked at all.

Just because we label it as "morality" doesn't mean that it has any intrinsic objective moral property. That's an attribute that we place on it after the fact. If we see people treating others in a way that they most likely wouldn't like to be treated themselves we simply label them to be "immoral people". But that's just an arbitrary label that we made up to label a particular situation.

[Artie]

The point is that I was not referring to 'atheism as a whole.' I referred to 'atheistic philosophies,'

There are no "atheistic philosophies." Here is the quote again: "A person's philosophy is their "system of principles for guidance in practical affairs." Like ideology, a philosophy comprises of two key elements: it must be a group of beliefs and it must provide guidance. Atheism is not a philosophy for the same reason that it is not an ideology: it's not even a single belief, much less a system of interconnected beliefs, and by itself atheism does not guide anyone anywhere." About.com

There are theist Jews and atheist Jews. They are both Jews. It is the "Jew" part that unites and defines them as Jews.

'atheism as a whole," and that 'getting rid of religion (which would be anti-theism)

"getting rid of religion" would be "irreligion".

doesn't solve problems or make people all of a sudden more moral and wonderful. You are the one attempting to equate atheism with the philosophies that are contained within it.

There are no philosophies "contained within it". How many times must I say it? Buddhism isn't "contained within atheism". Buddhism is just a religion/philosophy where one of the many tenets is that they are not theists. Buddhists aren't Buddhists because they are atheists, they are Buddhists and because they are Buddhists they are atheists.

What you are doing is the same thing as me saying that because Quakers, one of the most pacifistic religions there is, is not out to murder people, then no religion is 'out to murder people.' Now I know that you would not let me get away with that; why do you think you can get away with claiming that because not all atheistic philosophies

There are no "atheistic philosophies". Haven't we made this clear by now?

You are dodging. Whether deliberately or not, I don't know, but, and I repeat, humans are not vampire bats. Humans put their philosophies and ideas INTO WORDS. They examine things.

So what? The Golden Rule isn't a human philosophy or idea. Humans have simply observed the behaviour of social animals including ourselves and noticed that when animals help each other more of them/us are likely to thrive and survive. Moral behaviour such as helping each other was automatically selected for by evolution. Hence helping each other = moral. Hence moral people tell other people they should help each other. The Golden Rule.

So, for the final time, prove that the golden rule (or 'ethic of reciprocity') has been written/described...or even practiced...by any human culture apart from, or before, a religion.

Oh, now you say "human culture". Let me clarify so we are absolutely clear on this point: You claim that even though vampire bats practice the ethic of reciprocity, no human culture practised helping each other like vampire bats do before religion? We didn't even do what vampire bats do instinctively?

[Artie]

Double post.

[otseng]

Finite in the past. Could plausibly be infinite in the future.
Eternal means for all time. That is the standard way of using it, correct?

Eternal would include no end, but it would also include no beginning.

Still waiting for someone to show that the Universe must have a cause.

It is simply assuming the principle of causality. If X began to exist, then it must have a cause. X is the universe, so it must have a cause.

[otseng]

Perhaps, but I think what we'd find is great examples of religious beliefs influencing both the promotion of learning as well as its suppression.

If that's all you claim, then I don't have much of a problem with that. But, if your claim is the one-sided claim that religion suppresses truth, then I'd have a problem with that.

[otseng]

I was thinking entropy. But, since theists often field a version of the fine tuning argument which claims that there were no laws of physics at the beginning of the big bang, then, yes, maybe that too.

You do realize that if there was no laws of physics, then you'll have to throw out any scientific explanation. The only thing left would be a miraculous explanation.

"Miraculous explanation"? Oxymoron anybody?

Oxymoron, why?

All I'm saying is that I am unaware of any scientist saying that the big bang was the actual beginning (as opposed to a conventional beginning like the first day of January, of the first year of our lord).

I'm just talking about our universe here. So, you do not agree that our universe is around 14 billion years old?

Your claim is that I have to believe in a finite past if I believe in the big bang. Despite repeated opportunities, you haven't explained why that is.

It would've been a finite amount of time in the past when we are speaking of our time correct? Or do you dispute this also?

I have to believe the big bang is the beginning because you define it that way?

I'm not the one defining it.

"The Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

I have to withdraw my assent to your defining science as the study of the universe.

Then what is science?

The study of all of the natural world, regardless of when it happened, notwithstanding any arbitrarily defined limits.

OK, then what is the natural world? Is it something other than our universe? On what basis do you know that things outside our universe exists? How can things outside our universe fall into the scientific requirement of being empirically observable and measurable?

[wiploc]

Finite in the past. Could plausibly be infinite in the future.
Eternal means for all time. That is the standard way of using it, correct?

Eternal would include no end, but it would also include no beginning.

I think of eternal as meaning infinite in both directions, with no end on either.

But, since they've started claiming that you can't have infinities, people who want to call Jehovah eternal have to use a newfangled definition. Call it eternal-lite. It seems to mean that something started up at the same time as the rest of the universe, but for some reason we aren't going to call that a beginning.

Still waiting for someone to show that the Universe must have a cause.

It is simply assuming the principle of causality. If X began to exist, then it must have a cause. X is the universe, so it must have a cause.

That's half of the principle of causality. The rest would be that if something exists without beginning, then it must have a cause too.

Why someone would use one half without using the other half, I don't know. Unless using the whole thing would ruin their "proof."

In any case, if you're only going to use half, which half you use is completely arbitrary. One could as easily prove that Jehovah had a cause as that the rest of the universe did.

[otseng]

Morality is nothing more than a subjective opinion. It's entirely an invention of mankind.

From the atheistic perspective, yes, I agree.

I want to push this a little farther. If morality is just subjective opinion, should the term morality even be used at all? Morality implies that there is something that a person ought to do (ought to do the right thing). But, if there's really no right thing to do, except for one's subjective opinion, then why should another ought to do it?

We do not normally speak of morality in regards to personal opinions. "You are bad if you do not listen to classical music. You are evil if you like the color yellow. You are righteous if you only listen to the Beatles. You are sinning if you like spicy food."

So, I would think that the term morality (if it implies any oughtness, evil, good) makes no sense in an atheistic perspective.

[otseng]

I'm a utilitarian: Rape is wrong because it tends to make people unhappy.

It makes victims unhappy, but it gives the rapists pleasure. So, I do not think this is proper justification for why rape should be wrong.

[wiploc]

I'm a utilitarian: Rape is wrong because it tends to make people unhappy.

It makes victims unhappy, but it gives the rapists pleasure. So, I do not think this is proper justification for why rape should be wrong.

It makes almost everybody unhappy. It makes people afraid to walk outdoors at night. Or, if they live where that is safe, then it makes them fear for friends and relatives who live in less safe areas.

What else is there? If you think rape is wrong, and you don't think that its increasing unhappiness is what's wrong with it, then what is there about rape that makes it wrong?