arguments for atheism

[ruby sparks]

As opposed to believing and asserting that there is definitely an elf captured in the picture even though it is invisible.

Yes, but we're doing justifying the non-belief (for lack of evidence).

 

[Bomb#20]

...
And the dog's devotion isn't "worship" of an intangible. It's an expression of mutual happiness.
He once chewed the corner off The Living Bible.

My cat once threw up on Jerry Maguire. Everybody's a critic...

 

[southernhybrid]

I found a link that has numerous arguments for atheism. I really don't feel as if I need to make such an argument. To me, the concept of god is as absurd as the argument for garden fairies, except that garden fairies are a much cuter, nicer myth. For some reason, a lot of people can't seem to give up the idea that there's some invisible powerful supernatural being, or beings out there watching over them. I don't get it. I have no idea how intelligent, educated people can still believe that, but I accept that many do. At the same time, there are believers who are horrified or amazed that many of us don't believe in their gods.

I'll post the link for those who like to debate such things.

http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2017/10/why-im-atheist-13-reasons-arguments-for.html

There are 13 arguments in the link. The following is just one example. I'm probably not going to add anything else to this thread, but I at least wanted to give those who enjoy such discussions, a lilt bit of ammunition to debate/discuss. I think the guy who came up with this list has too much time on his hands.

.When you look at the full picture of evolution and you consider the 3.5 billion years during which this unfolding drama played out, when there were millions and millions of species that evolved only to be snuffed out and pushed into evolutionary dead ends, and during which time there was at least 5 mass extinctions in which some 70-95 percent of all the living species on earth at that time went extinct, I'm being asked by theists to believe that this was all part of a divine creator's plan who was sitting back and taking pleasure in watching millions of species (whose evolution he allegedly guided) get wiped out one after the other, and then starting all over again, and then wiped them out again and repeated this process over and over, until finally getting around to evolving human beings – which I'm told was the whole purpose of this cruel and clumsy process.

I created an evolutionary argument against god a few years ago, where I analyze the logical possibilities between the suffering required by evolution with the popular belief now among scientifically inclined theists that god used evolution to create human beings. We can argue:

If god chose to use evolution as the process by which he created human beings and all other forms of life, then god knowingly chose a process that requires suffering that is logically unnecessary.
If humans are the product of gradual evolution guided by god, then at some point during the process the soul appeared.
Once human beings had souls, they could be rewarded in an afterlife for the suffering they endured while they were alive.
If higher level primates are capable of third level pain awareness (knowing they are experiencing pain) then our pre-human hominid ancestors did too and they did not have souls.
This means god chose to create humans using a method that knowingly would involve conscious suffering that was not logically necessary.
An all-good, perfectly moral god who is incapable of unwarranted cruelty would not create beings that could consciously suffer in a way that was not logically necessary.
Therefore, the traditional notion of god who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good does not exist.

Most theists when hearing this argument will try to refute it one of a few ways. One way they'll do so is to say that god had morally sufficient reasons for allowing the suffering of evolution. They won't usually give any specific reasons, but they'll insist, god has them. This combines a level of skeptical theism with something like a soul building theodicy. But the suffering I'm talking about here affects animals as much as humans, and animals traditionally have no soul in Abrahamic theism. If they did, animal sacrifice would be that much more immoral, and it's commanded by the Abrahamic god. (See here for a critique of the "God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing suffering" theodicy.)

Furthermore, since animals are usually unaware of the deeper questions of why they're suffering, they have no ability to grow morally from any of it. They lack the intellect to grow but still have the capacity to suffer. C.S. Lewis wrote in The Problem of Pain, "So far as we know beasts are incapable either of sin or virtue: therefore they can neither deserve pain nor be improved by it." Suffering also afflicts humans in ways that make little sense to soul building. It afflicts babies, the righteous and unrighteous, those spiritually fulfilled and unfulfilled alike.

If omnibenevolence is compatible with millions of years of beings suffering that couldn't be improved by it, then what isn't compatible? What logical argument shows exactly what an omnibenevolent being can and cannot do? Is a billion years of suffering compatible? What about a trillion? Without a logical doctrine it makes the term "omnibenevolence" meaningless and unintelligible.

And any creator god does not merely allow suffering — suffering is built into the design. God is unavoidably directly responsible for all natural suffering in the universe:

(1) God (an omnipotent, omniscience, omni-benevolent being) exists.
(2) Natural evil exists.
(3) God is the creator and designer of the physical universe, including the laws that govern it.
(4) Natural disasters, and the evil they cause, are a direct byproduct of the laws that govern our universe.

In other words you can't claim that god is the creator and designer of the physical universe, including the laws that govern it — which is what every theist insists — and not also accept that natural evil is a direct byproduct of those laws. Natural evil cannot therefore be due to demons tinkering with god's plan. Demons would be the ones who actually created and designed the universe if that were the case.

So the suffering and haphazardness of the evolutionary process gives us good reason to believe there can be no omnibenevolence and therefore no traditional notion of god (which many theists say is the only kind of god that can exist). Furthermore, the fact that libertarian free will is incoherent prevents the theist from using the "free will defense" as an argument against moral evil. Take that away, and they've got nothing.

For a full description of the argument, see the Evolutionary Argument Against God

I will try to check back to see if any of you found any of these arguments interesting. I just glanced at most of them. Have fun.

 

[Politesse]

I've never been much impressed by the idea of "proving" your own religious perspective by finding flaws in everyone else's. It's actually pretty easy to find flaws in arguments you aren't predisposed to believe in the first place, and everyone does so shamelessly. It also encourages strawmen, since a person whose primary strategy is to knock down other people's argument has every reason to rely on easily collapsed arguments. Your quoted section above contains an interesting example, as "omni-benevolence" is not actually a common Christian belief, at least not in those terms; the word itself didn't appear until the 17th century, and it tends to be primarily used by atheists to describe Christian beliefs rather than by Christians themselves. I went through most of a seminary education without it ever coming up, nor was it the focus of any sermon I heard growing up. It is definitely not Catholic dogma. I'm sure there are some Christians somewhere who employ it, but most Christians have a more measured approach to God's morality, likely seeing God's intentions as ultimately good but not necessarily "maximally good" or "always the most good in all situations", etc, etc. The possibility that what we consider good or beneficial might conflict with the presumably deeper wisdom of God is lost on no one. So sire, I might be dismayed when the cute little faun gets eaten by the wolf. But no Christian ever claimed that fauns don't get eaten by wolves, or that this can be upsetting. Presumably, God had a purpose in bringing death into the universe even if it does not seem pleasant.

To say nothing of other theist traditions that make no such claim. If you think the Greek gods were omnibenevolent or supposed to be, you clearly never read Bullfinch's Mythology.

Apologetics are dull...

 

[ruby sparks]

I've never been much impressed by the idea of "proving" your own religious perspective by finding flaws in everyone else's.

How many, if any posters here mentioned proof?

Apologetics are dull...

Well, you asked for arguments to be put...but you're all bored and disappointed in them all of a sudden.

By all means, believe in a gawd if you want to, but quite honestly, by any reasonable standard, the rational arguments for atheism are really, really good. The arguments against it are crap. Ditto as regards the question of evidence. A blind man, with half a brain, on horseback, could see that from 50 yards away at first pass.

 

[OLDMAN]

I've never been much impressed by the idea of "proving" your own religious perspective by finding flaws in everyone else's. It's actually pretty easy to find flaws in arguments you aren't predisposed to believe in the first place, and everyone does so shamelessly. It also encourages strawmen, since a person whose primary strategy is to knock down other people's argument has every reason to rely on easily collapsed arguments. Your quoted section above contains an interesting example, as "omni-benevolence" is not actually a common Christian belief, at least not in those terms; the word itself didn't appear until the 17th century, and it tends to be primarily used by atheists to describe Christian beliefs rather than by Christians themselves. I went through most of a seminary education without it ever coming up, nor was it the focus of any sermon I heard growing up. It is definitely not Catholic dogma. I'm sure there are some Christians somewhere who employ it, but most Christians have a more measured approach to God's morality, likely seeing God's intentions as ultimately good but not necessarily "maximally good" or "always the most good in all situations", etc, etc. The possibility that what we consider good or beneficial might conflict with the presumably deeper wisdom of God is lost on no one. So sire, I might be dismayed when the cute little faun gets eaten by the wolf. But no Christian ever claimed that fauns don't get eaten by wolves, or that this can be upsetting. Presumably, God had a purpose in bringing death into the universe even if it does not seem pleasant.

To say nothing of other theist traditions that make no such claim. If you think the Greek gods were omnibenevolent or supposed to be, you clearly never read Bullfinch's Mythology.

Apologetics are dull...

Seems to me the real question is one of necessity. The reasons for needing a god involved is purely human. We can avoid death and we have some form of final justice. People no longer worship gods that don't give rewards or punishment...what we are talking about is magic, does the magical power exist and if so...why not fairies or elves instead of gods...because it is the magic and not the welder that matters.

 

[Politesse]

Well, you asked for arguments to be put...but you're all bored and disappointed in them all of a sudden.

I asked for elaboration on a specific argument, with what seemed to me like a novel and interesting approach. That's a horse of a different color. What I got was the usual grab bag. Getting shouted at for imagined beliefs is boring. I've heard the atheist gospel before, many times.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've never been much impressed by the idea of "proving" your own religious perspective by finding flaws in everyone else's. It's actually pretty easy to find flaws in arguments you aren't predisposed to believe in the first place, and everyone does so shamelessly. It also encourages strawmen, since a person whose primary strategy is to knock down other people's argument has every reason to rely on easily collapsed arguments. Your quoted section above contains an interesting example, as "omni-benevolence" is not actually a common Christian belief, at least not in those terms; the word itself didn't appear until the 17th century, and it tends to be primarily used by atheists to describe Christian beliefs rather than by Christians themselves. I went through most of a seminary education without it ever coming up, nor was it the focus of any sermon I heard growing up. It is definitely not Catholic dogma. I'm sure there are some Christians somewhere who employ it, but most Christians have a more measured approach to God's morality, likely seeing God's intentions as ultimately good but not necessarily "maximally good" or "always the most good in all situations", etc, etc. The possibility that what we consider good or beneficial might conflict with the presumably deeper wisdom of God is lost on no one. So sire, I might be dismayed when the cute little faun gets eaten by the wolf. But no Christian ever claimed that fauns don't get eaten by wolves, or that this can be upsetting. Presumably, God had a purpose in bringing death into the universe even if it does not seem pleasant.

To say nothing of other theist traditions that make no such claim. If you think the Greek gods were omnibenevolent or supposed to be, you clearly never read Bullfinch's Mythology.

Apologetics are dull...

Seems to me the real question is one of necessity. The reasons for needing a god involved is purely human. We can avoid death and we have some form of final justice. People no longer worship gods that don't give rewards or punishment...what we are talking about is magic, does the magical power exist and if so...why not fairies or elves instead of gods...because it is the magic and not the welder that matters.

That's right. Ruby's picture should have said "Find the Magic" or "Find the Woo." Belief in gods is just one tiny example of venerating magic. The humans that favor magic do so because it empowers them by giving them closure. It lets them invent answers to their questions.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, you asked for arguments to be put...but you're all bored and disappointed in them all of a sudden.

I asked for elaboration on a specific argument, with what seemed to me like a novel and interesting approach. That's a horse of a different color. What I got was the usual grab bag. Getting shouted at for imagined beliefs is boring. I've heard the atheist gospel before, many times.

Personally, I thought you got some half decent answers. I don't really recognise your characterisation of the responses in many respects, and haven't during the thread.

Me, I think that saying that the universe looks like there is no god is pretty justified (without the need to compare with a different universe, which was your original 'objection').

Of course, as someone else pointed out, it does all depend on what is meant by the word god. If it just means 'the universe' then....ok, you got me, god almost certainly exists, imo.

But I don't think that's how you see the god you are at least somewhat inclined to lean towards believing in. My guess is that one has supposed extra features.

 

[DBT]

The fatal flaw in the argument for God is that there is no evidence to support it. Where do you go from there? What is left?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The fatal flaw in the argument for God is that there is no evidence to support it. Where do you go from there? What is left?

What is the evidence for any conspiracy theory? Belief that gods are real is no different than belief that lizard people are real and trying to take over the human race. It's pretty weird shit that people believe there are invisible alien creatures living in the sky directing human activity. That's just plain weird insane shit. That's no different than believing any other conspiracy theory. There isn't any evidence but people still believe this shit.

These invisible alien creatures even have half human children. Isn't that some weird shit? Isn't it? Sure it is. But millions lap it up and sing songs to these creatures and half creatures. Weird shit, very weird. Flying, levitating humans? No problem, that's real shit, I believe it!

 

[abaddon]

Nontheism is the default stance because it's not a claim; it's "the world" as given before our concepts about it get piled on. We should start with what's available to the senses and work from there.

No one directly sees gods except perhaps some psychotic persons. However, it might be that sometimes a theist experiences some awesome thing, during a "religious" experience, and attributes it to "God". He does it because "God" is a ready-made label for those transformative experiences that induce ego-transcendence and confront the person with something greater than himself. It's hard to think of what to call the awesome and numinous, except what a culture's religious traditions have offered. I, as an atheist, seek other words for such experiences, - trying for language that sticks more closely to the experience and not abstracting into references to mythology (as with the word "God").

Most of the time, theists try to reason to a God (or rather, they've imbibed the myth and then need to seek justifications of it). So they find unexplained mysteries and, with some wordplay, will make it seem like there's an explanation for that mystery. And invariably (again) it's merely a reference to what their culture's religious tradition has offered as a ready-made explanation. Myths seem like explanations to these people, for the weightiness they've attained by being believed by millions for a long period of time.

So, in the end, all theist belief appeals to traditions. I've never seen any instance, neither among 'literalists' nor among the most liberal of pantheists/panentheists, where their conception of God doesn't devolve to this appeal to ancient myth.

I imagine that someone studying religious history might fall in love with the tales of enchantment - find they help express beauty in a world that'd seem droll if viewed through the cynical lens of reductivism, as with the view of persons who proclaim that reality is "just particles". This person needs to realize that that's not atheism. Identify your foe with more accuracy than that. Not finding value in the "godtalk" doesn't require adopting the hyper-reductive viewpoint of the positivist ideologues. Nature's not a lesser place for not having gods in it.

 

[DBT]

Mind boggling when you think about it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

However, it might be that sometimes a theist experiences some awesome thing, during a "religious" experience, and he calls it an experience of "God".

The day i went in for surgery on my eye, i met the anesthesiologist an hour before the surgeon.
He set me up with an IV, explaining this was the way they ssould deliver the sedatives to calm me down, and the super whammodyne pain killers to knock me out. I was cool with not being awake when they took a knife to my eye, and relaxed into the drug. Felt warm all over, numb in the vicinity of the needle, slowly spreading numbness going up my arm.

As i sat there, though, i reconsidered the conversation. I wasn't drugged, yet. Just got a saline drip going in readiness. Pulled the stand over, verified no tag on the saline bag. Nothing in there but flavored wster.

Instantly lost the numbness, the warmth. Still relaxed, just got a chuckle. Wife thought it'd have been more funny if they'd have wsrned me of hallucinogenic effects.

So, when people tell me they have felt the presence of gods in their life, i absolutely believe them. I also find it absolutely unnecessary to seek anything outside their head to explain it.

 

[abaddon]

So, when people tell me they have felt the presence of gods in their life, i absolutely believe them. I also find it absolutely unnecessary to seek anything outside their head to explain it.

I don't believe people when they say they've felt the presence of gods in their life.

When I was "born again" in a Youth For Christ summer camp, I felt like I was on cloud nine. They told me that's the Holy Spirit. And so, on occasions afterwards, I proclaimed "I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit!"

The thing is... I never did perceive any holy spirit at all. I can elaborate being on "cloud nine" at length but if I stick with the phenomenological details (including all factors of the environment around me), there's no holy spirit there at all. And it wouldn't have occurred to me to mis-describe the experience so grossly if I hadn't had myth-believers around pushing that interpretation.

The experience was as real as any other; I was hallucinating nothing whatsoever. But everything about Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit was external to the experience, mere abstractions piled on top. It's easy to confuse an experience and an interpretation. I don't dis-value the experience, it's only the interpretation that is suspect.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So, when people tell me they have felt the presence of gods in their life, i absolutely believe them. I also find it absolutely unnecessary to seek anything outside their head to explain it.

I don't believe people when they say they've felt the presence of gods in their life.

When I was "born again" in a Youth For Christ summer camp, I felt like I was on cloud nine. They told me that's the Holy Spirit. And so, on occasions afterwards, I proclaimed "I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit!"

The thing is... I never did perceive any holy spirit at all. I can elaborate being on "cloud nine" at length but if I stick with the phenomenological details (including all factors of the environment around me), there's no holy spirit there at all. And it wouldn't have occurred to me to mis-describe the experience so grossly if I hadn't had myth-believers around pushing that interpretation.

The experience was as real as any other; I was hallucinating nothing whatsoever. But everything about Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit was external to the experience, mere abstractions piled on top. It's easy to confuse an experience and an interpretation. I don't dis-value the experience, it's only the interpretation that is suspect.

In a recent conversation with a friend we agreed that the reason people continue to believe in gods, magic and other conspiracy theories is because they don't hear enough people telling them it's bogus. Kids stop their santa belief precisely because they meet other kids and people who tell them it's bogus, tell them it's okay. That's the dynamic that works and allows them to have rational thoughts and behavior.

But religion is supposedly somehow "sacred" and should not be talked about the same way when in reality it's just more of the same santa bullshit. In fact it's worse, with invisible space creatures interested in our sex organs. It's so insane that some people must think it's true, particularly when they're hearing the insanity from members of their family, the very people who should be protecting them from the danger of such monumental stupidity.

 

[ideologyhunter]

That's always bugged me, too -- do the believers actually hear a voice? Get a contact in their head? If they did, wouldn't they be quoting it to you or at least paraphrasing the revelation? (Sidebar: wouldn't they once and for all read their goddamned Bible, since they've met the author on his book tour?) Moogly's point is a good add-on: in America, anyway, a lot of people don't hear skeptical voices in their social setting. Europe is a much different story, and the US is slowly coming along. It's a lot easier to self-identify atheist, which I started doing routinely in the mid-90s. Back then, one of our local librarians, who couldn't have known my religious position, just my snarky humor, told me she couldn't tell me much about a book I had brought up to the checkout, because, "I'm atheist central, here." What a cool thing to say!! She may have sensed something about me, come to think of it. In the next breath I told her, "Me, too!" and the next day I gave her my last few years' worth of anti-Christmas cards. (I design my own faithless holiday cards for a limited readership.)

 

[Wiploc]

A case for atheism: Atheism doesn't require you to believe stupid stuff.

 

[Lion IRC]

If its not a faith/belief that God doesn't exist, then it must be a fact claim that God doesn't exist.

If the latter, then its a positive assertion with an obligatory burden of proof/evidence.

If the former, then its just another theistic position.

 

[DBT]

Evidence or its absence determines which conviction or lack of conviction is a matter of faith.

Evidence justifies a conviction.

Absence of evidence justifies a lack of conviction.

To believe without the support of evidence is to have faith.