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.

[Haven]

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.

You're committing the naturalistic fallacy. The fact that something is a certain way because of nature doesn't mean that it should be that way. You can't derive an ought from an is.

[Artie]

You're committing the naturalistic fallacy. The fact that something is a certain way because of nature doesn't mean that it should be that way. You can't derive an ought from an is.

"The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with a fallacious appeal to nature, a mistaken claim that something is good or right because it is natural (or bad or wrong because it is unnatural)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

I don't claim that something is good or right or moral because it is natural. I say that we are a social species. Nature using evolution and natural selection has favoured certain behaviours because they lead to well-being and survival. We call these behaviours good or right or moral and we call murder bad or wrong or immoral because it leads to non-survival.

[otseng]

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).

Yes, some rights are socially constructed. I'm not denying that. But, not all rights are.

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).

I can do whatever I want on this forum, even without a show of force. For example, I can simply shut down this forum. Nobody can really say to me, "Hey, that's not right for you to do that." Well, people might not like it, but it is within my rights to do it since I created and own the forum.

But, let me ask, is the only reason you obey the rules here because of the threat of banishment? I hope that would not be the case for most people. Why should people follow the rules then? I hope because simply it's the right thing to do.

It's not a natural right or a feature of the universe, but a display of raw power. "Might makes right," if you will.

I would disagree that force is justification for rights. I said being a creator, not force, gives rights over the creation.

Here's another example. What gives me rights over my children? Force? No. It's that I was part of procreating them. I don't have any rights over any other children because I did not procreate them. What if I demonstrate force over other children? Will that give me rights over them? No.

[otseng]

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.

That sounds like special pleading to me.

[otseng]

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.

Here are some examples of atheists in this thread that believe there is zero evidence for God:

So, are you claiming there is zero evidence that has been presented by theists for the existence of God?

I believe that, yes.

Then I still maintain, “There is no evidence that a god or gods exist.�

[otseng]

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.

I think there are other problems with B-theory of time, but we don't need to go down that path. But, I do not really think it avoids the issue of what caused the universe, whether it is a block or not.

[otseng]

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.

Without religion, are there really any immoral people? Don't atheists complain about religionists claiming that others are immoral? Without religionists to claim that people are immoral, can people still be immoral without religionists saying that they are immoral?

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."

Actually the rules are bias-free. The rules has no feelings, no ideas, and is not sentient. From the viewpoint of the posters on this forum, the rules are always true no matter what the circumstance or what people think they should be.

[otseng]

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.

As I mentioned earlier, this sounds like special pleading to me. Things inside the universe obey the principle of causality, but the universe itself does not.

[otseng]

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.

I'm just applying what is objective to human morality. If human morality is "true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings", then what can account for it?

Yes, I claim it comes from God. You might then ask where does God's morality come from? But, it doesn't really matter where God's morality comes from. It doesn't prove that God is not the source of human objective morality.

[otseng]

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.

Wait a minute, do you believe objective morality exists?

Murder leads to non-survival (death) so we call murder immoral.

Murder does not lead to the death of the murderer, just the victims. So, the murderer survives through natural selection. So, evolution favors the murderers. Why would then murder be immoral and not moral from an evolutionary point of view?