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.

[wiploc]

A range of gods

Gods, also, range from the mundane to the impossible. There are an infinity of possible and impossible gods, so I cannot refute them one by one. As Dr. Craig would be sure to point out, we don't have that much time.

If Dr. Craig did point that out he would be a hypocrite of the highest order.

He debated at K-State. Crushed the atheist, who seemed a nice guy with no idea of how to debate. This caused me to believe I should learn to speak for atheism. I was no longer, "Okay, I don't believe something, so what?" Now I'm, "Hey, my position is at least as legitimate as yours!"

So I wrote a speech, a hypothetical debate, as if I were going up against Craig. That's why all the Craig references and gestures in the above: I'm mining that old speech for arguments to use here.

Craig likes to argue that infinities are impossible. Therefore, it follows that I wouldn't have time to refute an infinite number of gods one at a time. In the context of my imaginary debate, that, "We don't have that much time," was a punchy line.

[wiploc]

There is no such thing as a problem of evil in a secular world.

The Problem of Square Circles is that it is impossible for circles to have corners. If someone had a theory that involved square circles, we would know the theory was false because of the Problem of Square Circles.

We don't say that the Problem of Square Circles doesn't exist in the real world, and we shouldn't say that the Problem of Evil doesn't exist in the real world either.

The PoE is the realization that certain claims cannot be true because they contradict each other. The PoE is true in all possible worlds.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 11 by wiploc]

You need to understand that Craig is a master at using strawman arguments. In other words, he's a master at trying to bring the focus of the debate to a concept that he knows he can easily knock down.

This is why he will gladly argue that you, as an atheist, cannot possibly make a case against all possible Gods. That's a strawman twice over.

It's strawman on the first level because it demands that the atheists rejects all possible concept of God. (although that might not be strawman in the case of some atheists). It would certainly be a strawman argument if it was brought against me because I make not claim of rejecting all possible concept of gods, spirituality, or mysticism. On the contrary, I'll actually support various mystical religions as being quite plausible.

It's strawman on the second level because Dr. Craig himself has already rejected all but his Biblical God. And so his argument concerning a need to demonstrate that all possible concepts of God are false is actually a totally distraction from his position. He, himself, has already dismissed all but his biblical God.

So he's actually being quite hypocritical to even use those kinds of strawman arguments. But the man clearly has no moral values. Apparently he'll arguing for any thing that will give him an easy "win".

If I were going debate with Craig that debate would necessarily need to be focused entirely on the Biblical Dogma. If we bring science, or any other religion into the debate, it would need to be within the context of that domain.

I don't need science to show that the Bible is a self-contradicting theism. However, there does indeed exist scientific evidence that the Bible is also filled with lies on top of its own self contradictions.

I wouldn't allow Craig to run around grabbing unrelated strawmen like claiming that I would need to disprove all possible Gods. That's just Craig trying to draw attention AWAY from the absurdities of the Bible itself.

I would not allow him to do that.

[Divine Insight]

The PoE is the realization that certain claims cannot be true because they contradict each other. The PoE is true in all possible worlds.

You are referring to a logical problem that uses the term "evil" as a metaphor for logical contradictions. That not the same as the problem of evil that theist are referring to.

From Wikipedia
"In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent"

The theistic problem of evil is not related to the logical "problem of evil" which is a metaphor that means logical contradictions. Although I'm sure that many theists would try to latch onto that proclaiming that some sort of "absolute problem of evil" exists even without theism.

The only problem here is that theists "solve" their problem of evil by pinning the blame of evil onto humans.

There is no solution to the logical "problem of logical contradictions" and it couldn't be solved by simply pinning the blame onto humans.

So when a theist speaks of the "Problem of Evil" they are speaking of it in terms of evil being immorality existing in a world that was created by a perfectly moral entity.

It's not even remotely related to the logical problems that all worlds must contain logical contradictions. I'm not even sure that this is true. If this is based on the work of Godel it's clearly not true, because all of Godel's work is based upon axiomatic systems, and so all worlds would not need to be based upon an axiomatic systems. Therefore they would be exempt from Godel's axiomatic logic anyway.

[mwtech]

I think the existence of so many variations of so many differing religions is evidence that there is no God who cares or can interact with human beings. If there was a God who was all powerful and had a purpose for creating the universe, why did so many people hear so many different stories from so many different Gods. I find it highly improbable that a God like the one of the Bible who cares for us to know he exists would not let us know he exists. And if he/she/they were to do so, I doubt they would give the only revelations they ever intended to spread all over the earth to illiterates in what they know (being omniscient) would become the most violent place on Earth. Of course this would be unconvincing to any theist ho thinks they have all the answers to why God doesn't talk to people anymore, or delusional people who think he talks to them. But, for an atheist who thinks it could be possible that there is a theistic God of sorts, it might convince some of the improbability.

[wiploc]

The PoE is the realization that certain claims cannot be true because they contradict each other. The PoE is true in all possible worlds.

You are referring to a logical problem that uses the term "evil" as a metaphor for logical contradictions.

No metaphor; this is the first I've heard of metaphors. No relationship between evil and logical contradictions (aside from the fact that you get a logical contradiction if you have a god who is totally opposed to evil, totally able to prevent it, totally wants to prevent it, but who never gets around to it.)

The way I define evil, the way I learned in a Western Civilization class, is that it is the sources of unhappiness, or, by extension, it is unhappiness itself.

But the PoE is bulletproof regardless of how you define evil. Define "evil" as cupcakes, and the logic is still flawless: If a god were omnipotent, omniscient, and totally opposed to the existence of cupcakes, then there would be no cupcakes. Since there are cupcakes, we know for a fact that no such gods exist.

That not the same as the problem of evil that theist are referring to.

From Wikipedia
"In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent"

Exactly. That's the only PoE that I know of.

The theistic problem of evil is not related to the logical "problem of evil" which is a metaphor that means logical contradictions.

Sorry, you're off the reservations. The PoE is no more a metaphor than the second law of thermodynamics.

Although I'm sure that many theists would try to latch onto that proclaiming that some sort of "absolute problem of evil" exists even without theism.

Evil coexisting with a tri-omni god would be a contradiction regardless of whether gods exist.

The only problem here is that theists "solve" their problem of evil by pinning the blame of evil onto humans.

Ah, the Free Will Defence (FWD). That's a defense against the PoE described above.

The defense doesn't work.

There is no solution to the logical "problem of logical contradictions" and it couldn't be solved by simply pinning the blame onto humans.

Right.

So when a theist speaks of the "Problem of Evil" they are speaking of it in terms of evil being immorality existing in a world that was created by a perfectly moral entity.

First, try not to conflate sin and evil.

Second, since they don't want you to know that they embrace a logical contradiction---and since they particularly don't want to know it themselves (except for egregious cases like WLC, where they know it themselves and don't just don't want others to know it) then they'll try to muddy the waters. Our job is not to let them.

The PoE is bulletproof. Any attempt to deny this, using the FWD or otherwise, will involve equivocation or special pleading.

It's not even remotely related to the logical problems that all worlds must contain logical contradictions.

No possible world contains a logical contradiction. That's what a possible world is.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Justify the belief that gods do not exist.

What justification is there for "Until you can show you speak truth, I'm gonna think ya ain't"?

The inability to offer confirmatory data for supernatural claims speaks volumes about how much there ain't nothing there to consider. The theist is incapable of offering anything beyond anecdotal, personal testimony, where I can infer psychology is a better explanation.

Beyond that, I look to the "Paul Bunyan Hypothesis" where Jesus is involved. I accept for argument's sake the man existed, but have a hard time thinking he could turn water into wine, and didn't do it daily. And walking on water, and healing lepers and the blind, and had him a big blue ox.


There's just this incredulimeter that pings every time I hear a Christian speak. "God loves you so much, that if'n you don't worship him, up to and including hating on some hot chicks getting groovy, he'll confine ya to Hell for from now 'til there ain't no 'nother tomorrow" is as goofy a notion as me getting married again. There's just too much of this goofy thinking for me to accept the Christian religion as plausible, much less believable. Christianity, in the form of such goofy claims, is the collected wisdom of those who ain't got 'em much of it to start with.

Judaism? "Believe if ya wanna, but what we're really gettin' at, is do good when ya can, and don't do bad if that helps to do ya some good along the way". Heck, I'll believe in that god, if only as some sort of metaphor.

Islam? "Believe, or we'll engage in us some head-lopping off" is obviously enticing, what with my being proud of having me a head and all, but it's just lacking in evidence beyond youtube videos of heads being all lopped. I note there are many moderate Islamists, who're good folks, and I wish 'em well. My issue is that I'm just not seeing such moderates acting against the extremists in ways that give me reason to think the fanatics are acting in "religious error".

Other religions? To be handled on a case by case basis.

Conclusions?

I justify my lack of belief in the claimant's inability to show he speaks truth.


But...

There are no gods, as considered here.

Gods are clearly the construct of humans, incredulous with their lot in life. The data clearly indicates that humans have a need to "justify" their existence, and actions, and the god concept, across cultures and religions, offers just such. Notice "God gave me life" sorts of claims, where instead of admitting an absence of confirmatory data for what brought about life, there is this leap to an anthropocentric god. A god that has all the mental and emotional development of the human carrying on about him.

Gods are the trolls of ignorance. Filling in the gaps with silly putty, not unlike the ignorant carpenter who can't tell his one-eighths from his foot-and-a-halfs.

Ignorant in the clinical sense, not at all to inflame, 'cause here I sit, exposing my own ignorance if shown to be in error. Goofy in the clinical sense, 'cause if my notions here are exposed as goofy, then using "absurd" doesn't quite get at my failure.

[otseng]

Looks like this will be a very interesting thread...

[Replying to post 1 by wiploc]
Only one thing. The continual failure for theists to demonstrate the existence of any gods, for the past 6000 years. That is enough for me to shift from weak atheism to strong atheism.

This is shifting the burden. The OP is asking for justification that gods do not exist. Claiming that theism has no valid arguments (which I disagree with) is not justification for atheism. And even if there is NO argument for theism, on your argument alone, it can only lead one to agnosticism, not strong atheism.

[otseng]

The Parable of the Pawnbroker:

Never heard of this one.

I think the only thing this parable shows is that the customer is not trustworthy, it does not show that gold chains do not exist. It might not exist in the customer's pocket, but it does not show that a gold chain cannot exist. The parable even demonstrates this in that the pawnbroker had a test to show if it was a gold chain or not. Having the test reveals that a gold chain can actually exist.

[otseng]

2. The Presumptive Falsity of Outrageous Claims

This makes the assumption that the existence of god is an outrageous claim. This is not a neutral approach, but shows one is already biased against it. What justification do you have that theism is outrageous? If anything, I would claim that theism is quite normal.