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]

And if there is supposedly some "objective morality" exactly WHERE are we supposed to find this objective morality?

I'm not specifying where it should come from.

Then why were you asking me where it comes from?

All I'm saying is that God can account for objective morality. I'm not stating (for now at least) that the Bible is the source of objective morality (which is what Divine Insight was driving at).

You implied that we don't need God for objective morality. So I ask you where it should then come from if not God.

[Haven]

Any creator has rights over its creation.

False. Rights are socially constructed (and therefore not objective -- it's pointless to speak of rights from the standpoint of the universe; they don't exist). Also, there have been creators who have lost rights over their creation (ask anyone who has had their intellectual property used by someone else).

I'm the owner and creator of this forum. It is within my right to create the rules and to tell people what to do on this forum. I also don't need to tell anyone why the rules are there or what benefit they will have if they follow the rules. People need to follow the rules just because I say so.

You have authority because you are able to maintain it by force and the threat of force (in this case, banning those who disagree with your rules). It's not a natural right or a feature of the universe, but a display of raw power. "Might makes right," if you will. The same principle can be applied to the (obviously more serious) examples of Kim Jong Un, Fidel Castro, and other dictators -- they have authority due to their ability to exert enough force to defeat challengers.

Is that really the argument you want to make for the moral authority of your god? Might makes right? Like a despot--a cosmic Kim?

Forgive me for thinking that raw power is not a sufficient justification for moral principles. I'm not adopting ANY moral principle just because someone says so--regardless of the real or imagined consequences. All ethical positions I hold are justified by reason and/or emotion, not just the whims of someone else with "authority."

[Haven]

Then the principle of causality is not important?

The principle of causality only holds at our scale (within the macro [non-quantum] universe) and on our apparent timeline. Extrapolating it to other scales and timelines is not justified.

[Haven]

All I'm saying is that God can account for objective morality. I'm not stating (for now at least) that the Bible is the source of objective morality (which is what Divine Insight was driving at).

God can account for subjective morality imposed by force, but this is not objective in any sense (as it is based on the characteristics and power of God, a subject, it is subjective by definition). Subjective morality imposed by force is still subjective morality.

You implied that we don't need God for objective morality. So I ask you where it should then come from if not God.

In my opinion, any concept of objective morality will be incoherent. You just don't get values from objective features of reality (that would violate the fact-value distinction).

[Artie]

It's not really my burden in this thread to argue for God. This whole topic came up because of the atheists' assertion that there is zero evidence for God.

1. Atheists in general don't assert that there is zero evidence for God they just don't believe in gods.
2. Strong atheists believe there are no gods.
3. The people you refer to as "atheists" are "agnostic atheists" and are a subset of all atheists.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 809 by otseng]

.. what do you mean?

We perceive this direction of time because of the second law of thermodynamics.

It's not that it "isn't real", it's just that A-theory perceptions are subjective and not objective. The arrow of time only exists subjectively.
In fact, the subjective perception of A theory is expected under B theory, whilst perceptions of B theory (i.e. general relativity and quantum mechanics' regards to time) are NOT expected under A theory.

... A theory also is widely accepted as incompatible with general relativity.

In fact, I don't even need to argue for B theory. I just gave you an alternate, entirely consistent viewpoint (that lacks an objective arrow of time or hard causality, making it simpler and preferred by occam's razor, but nvm that). God is clearly not necessary in this view.

[Artie]

Any creator has rights over its creation.

I'm the owner and creator of this forum. It is within my right to create the rules and to tell people what to do on this forum. I also don't need to tell anyone why the rules are there or what benefit they will have if they follow the rules. People need to follow the rules just because I say so.

Which is why we need religion. If we tell immoral people who don't understand why they should follow the rules that they were created and that they must follow the rules of this invented creator for their own good they might behave morally.

To elaborate on the forum example. The forum rules are like the objective morality. It doesn't matter what people think the rules should be. (As a matter of fact, some seem to think that they can just abide by their own rules here.) I have my own reasons for the rules, but I don't need to give reasons why people need to follow the rules. People are expected to do the right thing and follow the rules.

Of course your rules aren't objective. The definition of objective is "the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject." Wikipedia. You are a sentient subject and you have your own ideas and reasons for the rules, hence they are not objective by definition.

[Artie]

Then the principle of causality is not important?

"Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a physical consequence of the first." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality In the Block Universe causality is important but the Block Universe itself isn't an event or effect.

[Artie]

All I'm saying is that God can account for objective morality.

Of course he can't. The definition of objective is "the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject." Wikipedia. Your god is obviously a sentient subject making up the rules. Unless of course you can show that your god got his rules from an objective source.

[Artie]

You implied that we don't need God for objective morality. So I ask you where it should then come from if not God.

Evolution is the closest we get to objective morality. Evolution is an automatic objective natural process and natural selection favours behaviours leading to well-being and survival for as many organisms as possible. So we call these behaviours moral. Murder leads to non-survival (death) so we call murder immoral. No need for a god just nature.