What is Your Argument Against God?

[cleanhippie]

How many times have you been asked by a religious believer about your argument against the existence some god? Yeah, me too. What many religious believers seem unable to grasp is that no arguments are necessary. The atheist position is simply that those who believe in gods have not provided sufficient evidence to support their belief. The theist has not met his or her burden of proof. That's it.

When someone tells you about something that sounds so implausible that it is unlikely to be true, you ask for evidence. If the person provides sufficient evidence, you may begin to suspect that their claim is valid. You may begin to believe what they believe on the basis of this evidence. But if they do not provide sufficient evidence, you remain skeptical.

Since this does not seem to click for many believers, I often find myself saying something like this:

I do not believe in gods for the same reason you do not believe in unicorns. You do not have an argument against unicorns; you need no argument. You simply realize that there is insufficient evidence to support their existence and so you do not believe in them. And you are absolutely right to do so.

Atheism does not need to be any more complicated than this.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2011/08/what-is-your-argument-against-god.html

[provis99]

1. the same argument that Christians have against Zeus and Odin.

that they don't exist.

Believing in Yahweh, but not Zeus, is the ultimate in arrogance, because no proof exists for either, except that the Christian has decided that Yahweh is real, because they happen to be Christians.

[roguevalley]

30. actually, I believe both sides have a burden of proof. If you say yes,

you have to prove it. Conversely, so does the other side. they never agree but they have that burden too.

[darkstar3]

31. So prove that you don't beat your kids.

You can't, no matter how hard you try. But that's OK, because the burden of proof in that case isn't yours.

[_ed_]

58. Illogical

It is utterly illogical to prove a negative.

You try: prove to me that unicorns do not exist. Prove that there are no pink tigers. Prove that there aren't 55 moons orbiting our planet right now.

[Behind the Aegis]

61. It is not illogical.

One can prove a negative. What can't be proved is a limitless absolute. Things which have expansive parameters can also be difficult to disprove (or prove), but aren't always impossible to dis/prove.

Prove 4 is not greater than 5.

You need to do more research and you will find "proving a negative" can be done mathematically and logically. The false claim, "you can't prove a negative", is misused, often, as a way to state a "fact" in the negative then claim it "can't be proved" because the "fact" is negative; circular logic, often employed here.

[darkstar3]

69. And while your point of precision is valid, what we have here is a limitless absolute.

[Behind the Aegis]

74. Exactly. It can not be proved or disproved whether G-d exists...

...and therefore to claim knowledge of such existence or lack thereof as fact is what is false.

[darkstar3]

76. The problem with that statement, of course, is that very few people claim knowledge.

I can tell you that I know the God of the Bible doesn't exist, because as defined within the pages he is a logical, physical, and otherwise complete contradiction. However, I cannot, and will not, tell you that I know there are no gods. I will tell you that I see absolutely no evidence, no need, and no reason to believe in such a being.

This is the same position you'll find that most atheists, with few exceptions, occupy. We don't know, and we never claimed we did. We simply don't believe. Hence you find "agnostic atheists."

What you advocate here, like so many before you, is a manufactured middle ground in which agnostics can sit between theists and atheists. It doesn't work that way. Agnosticism does not occupy a vacuum, but rather overlays on other positions. When you, and those who believe that there exists this middle ground, understand the difference between knowledge and belief, you will understand why agnosticism isn't recognized as remotely separate or independent.

[Behind the Aegis]

77. Actually, I have seen quite a few claim knowledge.

They "know" G-d does not exist, as you claim. While you may present reasons for Him not to exist, it is not "proof" that He doesn't exist. If someone says they do not believe; I have no issue with it because it a belief.

I see no reason to address your strawman logical fallacy, but I will say the idea that negatives can't be proved (or disproved) is wrong.

[darkstar3]

78. Link, or it didn't happen.

And btw, don't confuse the rejection of the Biblical God, or as you call him G-d, with "knowledge" that no gods can exist. The two are worlds apart, by their very definitions and your own admission above. The more you define G-d, the easier it is to prove he doesn't exist.

But, of course, recognizing that distinction would get in the way of your own logical fallacy. You should work on that projection.

[Behind the Aegis]

79. No need for a link.

Your previous statement is enough. I love your use of logical fallacy, then pretend claim it is me projecting...nope, that is you. It is obviously so as you toss out yet another strawman. Seems you are quite "fluent" in logical fallacy.

"The more you define G-d, the easier it is to prove he doesn't exist." Perhaps, but it still doesn't "prove" He doesn't exist.

[darkstar3]

87. Let's take this one thing at a time.

First, on the usage of logical fallacy:

You invoked a false dichotomy in 74, and I answered that false dichotomy thoroughly in 76. No straw man was invoked, and if you wish to continue claiming that I have invoked such a fallacy, I suggest you quote me and show clearly, as I did in 76, how anything I said is a straw man.

Second, on the idea of proving that "G-d" doesn't exist:

Once you define "G-d" thoroughly enough to create a theological structure wherein you can't even spell out his damn name, you create testable claims about that god's interaction with the real world. These testable claims have been put to the test and found lacking. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Every claim that has been made regarding the Biblical God's interaction with the physical world has been either invalidated (prayer works just like a placebo) or completely unsubstantiated. Furthermore, you even admitted above that is possible to "prove a negative" with logic. The God of a the Bible is a logical and physical contradiction. As such, he cannot possibly be real.

Finally, to demonstrate the problem with your shifting of the burden of proof, imagine a dialog as follows:

John: "When was the last time you struck your wife?"
Jack: "I have never stricken my wife."
John: "That's quite an absolute statement, Jack. How can you be sure you have never stricken your wife? Have you any proof?"
Jack: "How could I have proof of something that never happened?"
John: "You tell me, Jack. You claimed flatly that you had never stricken your wife. You must have some evidence to back this up."
Jack: "Well what about your evidence? Have you any proof that I've ever stricken my wife?"
John: "I'm not the one who made the blanket statement. Tell me, do you remember everything you've ever done in your entire life?"
Jack: "What has that got to do..."
John: "DO YOU REMEMBER everything you've ever done in your entire life?"
Jack: "Of course not! No one remembers everything they've ever done!"
John: "So are you telling me that it's completely impossible that you've stricken your wife and simply forgotten about it?"
Jack: "Of course it's impossible! I've never stricken my wife!"
John: "But you just admitted that you don't remember everything you've ever done in your life. If you can't remember everything, and you have no proof, how do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you've never stricken your wife and simply forgotten?"
Jack: "I guess, when you put it that way, I don't."
John: "There, you see? You're a wife-beater!"

In this exercise, we saw several argumentative problems invoked by the antagonist. The burden of proof shift was only one of them. We also saw an appeal to ignorance, and the idea that failure to prove a negative due to lack of evidence automatically means that the positive claim is true. If this exchange had taken place within a courtroom, Jack's lawyer would be an incompetent ass if he didn't object several times to this line of questioning, chiefly but not entirely on the clear problem of supposition.

So tell me, John, do you still think your argument holds water?

[Behind the Aegis]

92. Yes, let's go really slowly.

Let's start with definitions:

false dichotomy -- A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither. source (ON EDIT: If you want a spectacular example of a "false dichotomy," you only need look at your subject title in post #78 which reads: "Link, or it didn't happen." Given your misquote of Carl Sagan (also a "false dichotomy"), I can't say I am surprised.)

Behind the Aegis (1000+ posts) Sat Sep-03-11 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #69
74. Exactly. It can not be proved or disproved whether G-d exists...
...and therefore to claim knowledge of such existence or lack thereof as fact is what is false.

This is not an example of a false dichotomy. G-d either exists or doesn't; there is no "middle ground" or other alternative. If there is an alternative, I'd like to hear it. If something cannot be proved or disproved, it can be considered a fact (truth). This is also not a false dichotomy. Is that what was confusing you? I used "fact" to mean "truth?" Your response was a complete strawman.

Strawman -- The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. source

Person A (me) has position X (It can not be proved or disproved whether G-d exists and therefore to claim knowledge of such existence or lack thereof as fact is what is false." post #74)

Person B (you) presents position Y (However, I cannot, and will not, tell you that I know there are no gods. (snip) What you advocate here, like so many before you, is a manufactured middle ground in which agnostics can sit between theists and atheists. post #76) (which is a distorted version of X).

Person B (you) attacks (Agnosticism does not occupy a vacuum, but rather overlays on other positions. When you, and those who believe that there exists this middle ground, understand the difference between knowledge and belief, you will understand why agnosticism isn't recognized as remotely separate or independent. post #76) position Y (What you advocate here, like so many before you, is a manufactured middle ground in which agnostics can sit between theists and atheists. post #76).

Therefore X ((It can not be proved or disproved whether G-d exists and therefore to claim knowledge of such existence or lack thereof as fact is what is false." post #74) is false/incorrect/flawed.

It should have been obvious you were creating a strawman as I said absolutely NOTHING about agnosticism.

Also, there was no "shifting of burden of proof." I didn't ask you to dis/prove the existence of G-d. You chose to do so. What is even more interesting, to me, is your irritation at my spelling of His name, I will call that "cherry on top" because in the arrogance of your responses, I will admit I find it amusing something so trivial could be so annoying to you. It also shows your "supposition" in action, again! Of course, given you didn't even get a quote correct ("Absence of evidence is evidence of absence."), I can't say I am surprised at your onslaught of logical fallacies. Your entire dialog has been nothing more than supposition, so in your little story, you are actually "John."

(ON EDIT: This exchange has been mildly interesting, especially considering it was not about whether G-d exists or not, but rather the false assertion a "negative cannot be proved.")

[darkstar3]

93. Misrepresentation will get you nowhere,

but at least now I understand why you mistakenly believe that a straw man was invoked. You wrongly believe that my response to your false dichotomy, or false choice, was a strawman because I saw through your smokescreen.

Let's clarify, shall we? 74 was not about whether God exists, and we both know it, and so does anyone who has read this far in the thread. 74 was about knowledge of God, and your claim that people either know he exists, or know that he does not. The fact that you ignored agnosticism is entirely the problem, and your adept twisting of logic here proves to me that you were aware the entire time of this issue. Ergo, your entire argument is predicated on a falsehood, namely that 74 was about the existence of God and not about knowledge.

And don't accuse me of misquoting unless you know I was trying to quote Sagan. If you'd actually read his work, you'd know exactly why I wrote what I did. It's not about quoting, it's about the truth that Sagan was getting at in his book.

Of course, I think you even know that as well. Judging by the clear ad hominem of your last post you are desperately trying to discredit me in the eyes of other readers because you know beyond doubt that everything I've posted to this point is true. In which case, I have nothing further to say except shame on you.

[Behind the Aegis]

94. You have done an excellent job of misrepresentation .

You keep pushing those fallacies and projecting: you'll never fail, "John." Your post is disingenuous nonsense and false victimization, classic signs of failure.

[SwissTony]

85. You are (deliberately, I presume) conflating "falsehood" with "negative".

If you wish to label all falsehoods as negatives, you're shifting the goalposts.

But while I'm here, I believe in unicorns. Very few other people do. You claim you can prove this negative view. Can you outline me a method of proving these disbelievers' negative? Not a full-blown proof, of course, but maybe 4 or 5 bullet points.

Thanks in advance.

[Behind the Aegis]

91. Seems you are the one conflating. I did nothing of the sort.

Falsehoods can be stated in a "positive" or "negative" manner. "Proving a negative" has nothing to do with the "negative" being a "falsehood," as the very negative statement can, in fact, be a truth.

"Atlanta is not the capital of the United States."

It is a negative statement and it is a truth.

On edit: In my haste to get to a shower before the lightening storm, I forgot to address you logical fallacy: burden of proof (do look it up)

But while I'm here, I believe in unicorns. Very few other people do. You claim you can prove this negative view. Can you outline me a method of proving these disbelievers' negative? Not a full-blown proof, of course, but maybe 4 or 5 bullet points.

I look forward to your proof. Now, it need (n)ot (be) a full-blown proof, of course, but maybe 4 or 5 bullet points.. Should be quite interesting!

[LAGC]

100. I think you answered your own question.

The onus is on the believer to prove it exists, not on the non-believer to prove that it doesn't.

[Behind the Aegis]

101. The onus, actually, is on whomever makes the claim.

In this case, SwissTony is obligated to "prove" the existence of unicorns, as he has asserted his belief in them.

[darkstar3]

105. Then why is anyone responsible for proving that God doesn't exist?

If SwissTony is obligated to prove the existence of unicorns before you will believe him, then why did you and I have a whole conversation about proving God doesn't exist?

Oh, wait, I see, there must be a bridge around here somewhere...

[Behind the Aegis]

106. The only ones responsible for proving such a claim are those making it.

You had your own conversation and strawmen to attack. My entire subthread, including the very first post to "ed" was about the fallacy that a negative cannot be proved (disproved).

[cleanhippie]

107. Would you agree that the original claim is that there IS a god?

No one claimed that "there is no god" UNTIL someone first claimed that there was one, right?

[Behind the Aegis]

109. What original claim?

If you are talking about the very nature of it, then usually the positive precedes the negative. However, if one walks around proclaiming knowledge there is no god/s, then the onus is on him/her to prove such a claim. The idea you and other seemingly think it is acceptable to claim something as fact, yet not substantiate it, is anti-logic and, imo, hypocritical. The "shiny keys" you and the others keep dangling do not address the original claim that a negative can, in fact, be dis/proved.

[aquart]

2. Yah. I believe God is an elective office.

It's obvious the dinosaurs were a previous administration.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Which brings up a new theological debate: Was the Supreme Deithy

a Meatosaurus or Veggiesaurus?

[aquart]

9. Omnisaurus. Goes with omniscient.

[sakabatou]

48. You saw what happened when Loki came into office.

[laconicsax]

3. Rec'd to zero.

Apparently, this post ruffles some feathers.

[provis99]

5. the religion forum is just like the guns forum.

Post anything that questions religion or guns, and you're guaranteeing that fanatics will unrec, yet not post.

[cleanhippie]

13. Anything in this forum based on reason usually does.

Goes with having a "worldview" based on reality, I guess.

[Fearless]

4. Here we go...

Religious belief and religion are two different things. This must be said at the outset. Religious belief is internally coded. Religion is the external transmission of that internal religious belief. Religious belief is praying, keeping Kosher, treating others the way you want to be treated, etc., and how you feel about dogma. Dogma is religion. It is the Ten Commandments, the Baptism, the sacred rituals, the clothing, the physical expression of one's belief.

It is this physical expression that describes for each other one's religious beliefs. What you see of a religious person can tell you much of what they are believing internally. The same is true for the non-religious -- absence is a sign the same as appearance.

That said, the purpose of religion is to proliferate one's beliefs onto others and to fortify it amongst the "believers". Period. It serves as a standard by which all members of a faith or a sect of a faith will measure themselves by. ("Am I a good Christian?" "Am I a good Muslim?" Etc.) It keeps people enthused and keeps people in line with a central dogma. And, it's a form of control.

In the end, there are hundreds of types of religious belief and thousands of sects within those beliefs. And each believes that it is the true one or the right one even, if not especially, when they say they're not. I'm not just talking about evangelicals; I'm talking about Buddhists as well, Lutherans as well, Universalists as well -- all people who believe in religion. Just the same, those who don't believe in religions or have religious beliefs (such as yours truly) believe that their correct and that everyone else is wrong. Inherently there is no problem in this. People can have whatever beliefs they want.

Beliefs move forward however, they congregate as it were. Religious beliefs group together with like-minded people doing like minded things for like-minded reasons. Thus, religion is born. Churches are built, ceremonies are created, rules are instituted, and money is collected. Atheism has yet to do this. Perhaps it will. In the age of the Internet, why not? Atheists would certainly be attracted to groups in which they would have more influence and power. Or would they be more reminded of religious beliefs of their pasts? Perhaps it would take a few generations of atheists, but undoubtedly, eventually, they would congregate too.

As with all groups that congregate, by which I mean all religions, they will gain power in their locality. They will get things done their way and soon enough they will drive out those who don't agree with them. Such actions could be benign or they could be physical. It probably depends on how different the minority group's beliefs are and likewise how much of a threat they are seen to be. Palestinians are a bigger perceived threat than the Amish after all.

Regardless, at some point, generations will pass and people in religions will forget what it was like to be discriminated against. They will lose the ability to understand the plight which they could hold on their fellow neighboring minorities. And, impose themselves they will. Excuses will be made and discrimination will commence. The minorities will be hurt. It doesn't matter who they are or what they believe. It will be deemed evil and sought to be stamped out. Those that were formerly discriminated against will now be the prosecutor.

Of course, this evolution, which has been seen historically many times over (Puritans, Evangelicals, Muslims, etc.) and though not universally descriptive of all members of a religion or a sect, can be seen by those who adhere most ardently to the beliefs of any group. Any group at all. Religion is an easy target today, because of who I am and what I believe, but the same is for all groups. Political parties play this game. When one gains power they mock the other. When they lose power, they are mocked. There is no empathy. When the American Colonies became strong enough, they fought off the British. But then to countless other nations, generations later, perspective of discrimination forgotten, they enslaved Africans, massacred Philippians, and waged economic and military wars in countless nations for their own profit. They exploited others in the same fashion that Great Britain had once exploited them. There is no empathy at all for those who do not remember what it was like to be hurt.

This is the cycle that we as a world are stuck in today. It is a cycle of hate and it is self-defeating. One nation will rise off the pain it endured and overcome the nation which oppressed them. Or it could be religion or economy or company or special interest group or any type of group in which people with like beliefs congregate. The fact is that we are stuck in this cycle. It has occurred since the beginning of civilization, that one group would prefer to destroy another simply to ensure that it is most powerful and thereby most successful by default.

The problem with defeating this cycle lies within the beliefs that are held themselves. Simply, the belief itself is that all other societies should be subservient. That is the belief inherent in each person. Survival of the fittest. It's even called "the human race." That's what's going on. We are all racing to the top spot as if, like in a pyramid, there is only one top stone.

Each person holds beliefs which help their group overthrow other groups. Then each person holds beliefs that helps unseat people who are higher in their own group. All because they believe that there is only one top spot.

Right now I'm sure there are those who say, "No you're wrong. I don't believe that way!" But don't you? You think the conservatives are wrong. The neo-cons destroyed this nation. The pro-lifers are anti-woman. The pro-capital punishment crowd is killing innocent people. Private health care is economically biased. Proposition 8 supporters are bigots and hatemongers. Right?

Well that is your belief. The same as the opposite is their belief. We all believe our beliefs (whatever they may be) with the same strength and conviction. It's just that we cannot easily see that because each person's beliefs (and degrees of belief in those beliefs) are different.

So right and wrong are perspectives and nothing more. Even everything I say here is just my perspective. It is neither wrong nor right. It just is. How you see it determines how you perceive it. You decide the same as I do whether something is wrong or right. The only difference to the outcome is whether or not you are in the majority or the minority. (That is, whether you are successful or not is clearly dependent on which group is most powerful.)

We as humans, in my opinion, should give up this cycle which I believe we are in. But those who this proposed cycle has profited believe the opposite. Perhaps they believe that it doesn't exist at all. In the end, belief cannot be factually proven. Even many things we think can be proven cannot. The Earth is round. How is that more or less true than the Earth is flat? Certainly to the majority of us, the Earth might as well be flat. To some who cross the globe or see the Earth from space or have international trade in mind, sure they can believe something else. And, they might convince us of it. And they did. Fishermen, who used the sea for money, and later tradesmen like Columbus, proved it for us because it economically advantaged them to do so. As did kings and queens of Europe. It greatly advantaged them to "prove" to us that the world was round.

In the same right, it did the Christian Church well to prove to us that the Earth was flat. It instilled fear of the unknown, closed the world down, and made the Church the sole power at the top of the pyramid. It suited their desires and their beliefs -- that they knew best, that they were civilized, and that they should rule everyone using their beliefs. The fact that the Earth was flat was no more or less meaningful or useful than the Earth was round. And, in perspective of those who believe one thing, their belief is fact and the other is false. They are right and the other is wrong.

It doesn't matter which is which or whether the world is actually round, or whether genocide is actually justified, or whether pro-life is anti-woman, or if the neo-cons destroyed the nation. All fact is point of view in a world in which each and every person is convinced that they are holding of the one true belief.

In a world where no one is truly right or wrong, in which power is the only guarantee of success. Is it any wonder that we are so insistent that we are right? In a world where everyone believes that they themselves are right and everyone else is wrong in one way or another, how can we even wonder why there are wars fighting for power over oil fields, refugees of religious and social wars, in short that we are a violent society? When violent's moral direction is simply perception, what does it matter at all?


http://unwilling-dystopia.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-is-fact.html

[Jim__]

23. "All because they believe that there is only one top spot."

You can label that a belief, but it looks to me like a tautology, i.e. there is only one top spot. But I disagree with what you are saying on a more fundamental level. I don't accept that group-on-group violence is only based on belief. I believe that it is an inherent part of our nature. The Yanamamo, a primitive people that live in the Amazon rain forest, have "wars" that greatly resemble the "wars" chimpanzee troops engage in. The implication is that war is deeply embedded in our evolution, and, as such, much more a part of who we are than any belief.

Each person holds beliefs which help their group overthrow other groups.

I do agree that human beliefs are important. I think the really important beliefs are more than individual beliefs, they are beliefs held in common by the entire group. This adds tremendous cohesion to the group and helps the the group to survive, especially through unified action and a willingness to die when fighting other groups.

In a world where no one is truly right or wrong, in which power is the only guarantee of success. Is it any wonder that we are so insistent that we are right? In a world where everyone believes that they themselves are right and everyone else is wrong in one way or another, how can we even wonder why there are wars fighting for power over oil fields, refugees of religious and social wars, in short that we are a violent society? When violent's moral direction is simply perception, what does it matter at all?

Group survival is the determinant of whether or we are right or wrong. Every society that I am aware of outlaws in-group murder (not all in-group killing) and in-group rape. To me that is a clear indication that these actions are wrong. Societies that don't enforce sanctions against these acts will not behave as a cohesive group and will be susceptible to attack and annihilation by groups that are more cohesive.

[orpupilofnature57]

6. Nothing ,just the usurping experts that speak For him and At me.

[MindandSoul]

7. My argument is not against GOD, it's against manmade religions

I am not an atheist. I do believe in a higher power. I just do not believe that that higher power meets the "image" imposed on Him/HER/IT by men.

I do not believe in manmade dogmas. I do not believe that the bible (or the koran, or any other religious books) are the LITERAL word of God, but rather men's perception of what God would want, and their words are limited by human needs, cultural mores, greed, power search, etc. . .

I do not resent GOD involvement in our world. I resent MEN's placing human limitations on God.

So, I may be an atheist as far as any "man made God" is concerned. But I do believe in a higher power that is far above human's perception.

[RKP5637]

10. What you say makes sense to me. I'm not saying I believe in a

higher power, but I do think what you said makes 1000% sense IMO. I resent all of the god stuff too. It's used by authoritarians, politicians, all types of people for their ends and I resent people trying to shove on me their interpretation of what god is ...

Excellent post IMO!

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. OK. Why? nt

[Merlot]

22. There should be a word for people who don't believe in man-made rellgion

but have no problem with god or spirituality.

What would that be?

[darkstar3]

24. They call themselves "spiritual".

[Merlot]

29. "Spiritual" doesn't say anything about the opposition to religion.

There should be a word that doesn't just explain the personal feeling, but also the lack of belief in religion. "spiritual" people can also be followers of religion.

[darkstar3]

32. IME, those who self-identify as "spiritual" run like hell from religion.

Not woo, though, but definitely religion.

[Deep13]

56. Um, all religion is man-made because it does not exist outside of our thoughts.

Even if gods are real, the thought of them is purely subjective.

[cleanhippie]

57. Winner!

[Nihil]

103. No single word but the phrase "spiritual but not religious" seems to be widely used ...

"Deist" and "Theist" come close but often have implications of
"mainstreamism" that incline people to use the phrase instead.

:hi:

[Nihil]

102. Agreed. Nice post! (n/t)

:toast:

[Curmudgeoness]

11. I suspect that I will use your unicorn analogy if you don't mind.

It really is as simple as that. I just don't comprehend why anyone would want an argument against god. And why would a person of faith even want an argument---they believe, I don't, end of discussion. I really do not want to change their opinions if they are happy with their belief. I think that someone who truly does believe and lives by the standards set forth for them by their religion are living a decent life, and I don't want them to question it.

Seems that people who are looking for an argument against god may have questions of their own.

[RKP5637]

15. The line is crossed for me when they try to force their beliefs on me especially

via political shenanigans, getting into office, positions of power, to force their views on me as the law of the land. There are not a few people in this country that would love to have a theocracy, of course, fitting their religion. I'm fed up with the mix of god stuff and politics in this country.

[Curmudgeoness]

20. I second that. nt

[Deep13]

36. Some of them want to convert you based on ...

...the perception of urgent need. If they are right and eternal damnation and torture awaits anyone who does not believe in JC, then they have a moral imperative to save as many people from that as they can.

[darkstar3]

41. Moral judgments from the servants of a sadist, how quaint.

[Deep13]

42. On some level they know the god they believe in...

...is monsterously cruel. When my former employer's dad died, he was worried--I mean really worried--that his dad was in hell because he was slightly less of a fundy than he had been when my former employer was young. When I told him he didn't need to worry because whatever happened, god's judgment is always right and his father is right where he is supposed to be. I meant that as solace figuring he believed his god was just. He said that my observation was no help at all, as he believed his god was a mean bastard.

That's where their motivation to get on his good side comes from. It's kind of like a celestial Stockholm syndrome.

[cleanhippie]

53. Thats an interesting take.

It's kind of like a celestial Stockholm syndrome.


I have never thought of it that way.

[Curmudgeoness]

68. If these people believe that their god is mean and cruel,

why don't they live a more perfect life? I have to say, if I was terrified of some all-knowing entity who could see into my heart and read my mind, I would be afraid to do anything wrong, and I mean ANYTHING.

So....there would be no adultry, no divorce, no rape, no murder, no robberies, no gossip, and everyone would be exceedingly nice to others. Churches would be flush with cash from all the 10% tithes. Charities would not have to beg.

I just don't see it.

[darkstar3]

70. If you appeal directly to a bastard's sense of ego, you usually get on their good side.

[Deep13]

75. It's contrary to human nature.

That's how every totalitarian ideology works. The standards are such that no one can ever be expected to met them. So the subject is in a perpetual state of supplication asking for forgiveness for being a sinner (whatever that means).

[raccoon]

52. And that kind of person is so annoying--and arrogant.

I doubt very many of them ever realize how arrogant that is, to come across like, "If you don't believe what I believe, you're going to hell. I am 100% right and you are 100% wrong."

And while they may not say so, the implication is that you're evil and they are immensely superior to you.

:puke:

[Deep13]

55. yup nt

[Auggie]

14. When I'm asked I change the subject

It's no-win... There's no cheese down that tunnel.

[MineralMan]

16. I never bother to do that. What would be the point of it?

I simply don't get into such discussions. I'm an atheist. I don't believe any such supernatural entities exist. Some people do believe they exist. It doesn't really matter to me what people believe. I only care how they act.

[cleanhippie]

18. I think you hit it exactly.

I only care how they act.


And when they act in such a way that it makes it impossible to ignore, such as breaching the church/state wall, or passing legislation to further one's own religion or oppress another's....

[MineralMan]

21. When they do that, I address their actions and point out

scriptural references that show that they're wrong. I'm really good at that, and know the Bible better than 90% of Christians.

[darkstar3]

17. How simple it is, and yet

there are those who equate the unicorn analogy, along with analogies to Santa Claus and even Zeus, to be hateful and strident speech. With that claim to insult and persecution, they immediately circumvent the point.

[rug]

19. My favorite is #8.

[saras]

25. I only have an indirect argument - against belief, not God.

Believing - that is, the practice of isolating part of one's worldview from the possibility of being influenced by evidence - is a dangerous practice that seems to make people substantially stupider than if they don't practice it. Since the death of the Soviet empire and Mao's China, the two main groups of believers threatening the world at this point either believe in a monotheistic God, or they believe in capitalism. I can't really say that religious believers are MORE dangerous, as both groups indicate a complete willingness to end human life on Earth in the service of their beliefs.

[Odin2005]

26. I don't believe in God for the same reason I...

...don't believe there are invisible magical unicorns on the far side of the moon.

[kickysnana]

27. Which one? n/t

[Iggo]

28. Don't need one. (n/t)

[Kurmudgeon]

33. Where is your argument that everything just popped into existance out of nothing?

That requires faith as well. What was that original spark that created life and existence?
Just sheer chance? I don't share that nonbeliever's faith in nothing.

[darkstar3]

34. That is a persistent straw man,

invoked only by those with no understanding of astrophysics, mathematics, or infinity. But keep beating at it if it makes you feel better.

[Kurmudgeon]

37. In other words, you have no answer so you yell "straw man" and throw insults.

Typical, pathetic, but typical.

[Deep13]

39. No, pointing to problems that don't exist is a straw man argument.

Sorry if you can't quite wrap your brain around that concept. As I said in a different post, lack of evidence is not affirmative evidence of God. God does not win by default.

[Kurmudgeon]

82. I accept Christ's Word. I guess you disbelieve all of history if you weren't there.

[Deep13]

84. Being there is no guarantee of accuracy.

That's actually a creationist argument. "You weren't there!" When I was still prosecuting I felt a lot better about solid circumstantial cases than I did about relying on someone's word who was there. That's what history is: making a good circumstantial case. Good historical evidence is supported by corroborating sources. The New Testament is not a historical source because it was written decades after the purported facts and they contradict each other. And it contradicts known historical fact. (i.e., there was no empire-wide census.) While some allowance has to be made for historical sources that are not entirely consistent due to human frailties, one would think divine pronouncement would be free from such things. My point being, you have no real way of knowing what Christ said or did or, frankly, if he even existed.

Besides, all religions have holy books that claim exclusive revelation. Had you been born in Yemen, you would be just as adamant about the Koran and Mohamed. India, it would be Ganesha. Ancient Greece, the Olympians. Medieval Norway, Thor and Odin and the rest of them. How on earth can you possibly have any certainty that your holy book is right and the rest of them are wrong?

Anyway, where in the Gospels does JC say that the universe was deliberately created?

[Leontius]

99. Just about all ancient history and an increasing number of more

recent history mirrors many of your complaints about the New Testament as a historical source. Following your line of argument one would have to disregard almost all of mankind's past record as to error filled to be of any use even given your amazing twist to 'allow for human frailty' outside of 'religious' texts.

[darkstar3]

40. And there's more fallacious argumentation.

Pointing out the flaw in your logic and your clear ignorance of current scientific models of the origin of the universe is not an insult. You invoking the word "pathetic", on the hand...

[Kurmudgeon]

83. I'm sure that fed you well while you typed it.

[darkstar3]

88. Non sequitur.

Do some research on the origin of the universe. No one in the scientific community proposes the idea that the universe popped into existence from nothing.

[Deep13]

38. God of the gaps. What disingenuous nonsense.

We don't know what started the universe. What caused it? Unknown. Insufficient evidence. God does not win by default. A lack of evidence is not positive evidence of god. We do not have any real reason to believe that it popped out of nothing. When we do find the answer, what will your argument be?

There was no original spark because there is no spark. Life is simply a complex chemical reaction that began with a much simpler chemical reaction. The early earth was hot and teaming with reactive, carbon-based chemicals. Chemical bonds were breaking and reforming in different combinations millions of times a second all over the Earth for thousands of years on end. Well, through the dice enough times and you will get a perfect Yatzee. One a molecule happened that caused copies of itself to form, the rest was up< to natural selection. There is no spark. Life is just a name we give to a certain kind of chemistry that does things we call life. We are the same stuff running on the same chemistry as all the other matter in the universe.[br />
You are misusing the term "faith." A lack of belief is not faith. A rejection of an implausible claim is not faith. Even if we knew nothing about life or about the universe, god would still be the wrong answer. Saying "god did it" infinitely compounds the problems of existence because we would have to decide how nothing created a thinking being sufficiently complex and powerful to create a universe while somehow remaining undetected. Who made god? Besides, even if we have no evidence of evolution or the big bang, that is not affirmative evidence of god.

To every complex problem there is a simple, wrong solution. "God did it" is in that category.

[laconicsax]

43. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Read a book written in the last decade...hell, in the last half-century.

[Silent3]

46. What's sad about a post like this...

...is that I'm sure you've heard a dozen times the flaws in your of argument.

Even if you don't agree with the counterarguments, however, you should at least by now have improved your game a bit to show you've learned something, that you know those counterarguments exist, build in a little preemptive strike against the things you should quite well know by now can and will be said to counter a post like yours.

But no, you'll blithely repeat the same old same old, as if you've got such a "gotcha!" stumper, as if "boy, oh, boy, those atheists'll never wiggle out of this!".

Sad.

[trotsky]

49. Where is your argument that the universe requires your creator to

"(pop) into existance (sic)"?

The universe is here. We don't know why, yet. We've got lots of interesting theories though, and none of them require a god. How about you prove that it was your god that started it all?

[cleanhippie]

54. You should do some reading.

All of your questions are born from ignorance.

[_ed_]

59. No one claims

"existance out of nothing." It's a straw man. Provide any evolutionary biologist that simply concludes, "There was an original spark that created life and existence."

Also, the fact that science is incomplete is not a proof.

What is your argument to bolster your religious claims?

[NMMNG]

72. What atheist ever made that claim?

:eyes:

[laconicsax]

73. The one made of straw that creationists like to debate. n/t

[provis99]

86. Stephen Hawkings has answered this over and over again.

Suffice it to say that he is right, and religious people are wrong.

[Deep13]

35. There is simply no reason at all to suppose there is one.

I'm not saying that there is insufficient evidence. I'm not even saying that there is NO evidence. I'm saying there is no evidence and enough circumstantial counter-indications to make the existence of an all-powerful creative being that cares about the same stuff as terrestrial primates means that god is impossible. And the fact that all the arguments I have ever heard are based on logical fallacies demonstrators a kind of desperation on the part of believers that they would not need if they had a case to make.

[Starboard Tack]

44. Skeptics tend to be agnostic, not atheist.

I see little difference between the believer or the non-believer. Both are absolutist.
The true skeptic searches for the truth with an open mind, but looks for proof.

[laconicsax]

47. Those aren't mutually exclusive.

In fact, most atheists are both.

Agnosticism is about knowledge--whether it is possible to know if a god exists.
Atheism is about belief--whether or not one holds belief in a god.

Because these are different binary questions, there are four possible answers:

Gnostic theist--believes in a god and that it is possible to know that said god exists.
Agnostic theist--believes in a god but doesn't think it's possible to ever know for sure.
Agnostic atheist--doesn't believe in a god and thinks that it's impossible to know if it exists.
Gnostic atheist--doesn't believe in a god and that it is possible to know whether it exists.

So you see, agnosticism isn't a fuzzy middle-ground but an answer to a completely different question.

I, for example, am an agnostic atheist. As there are an infinite number of possible gods, I don't believe that it's possible to know about all of them and, in the absence of evidence for any of them, I don't believe they exist. If you ask me if I believe. The answer is "no." If you ask me if it's possible to know if a god exists, the answer is a conditional "no." (The condition being that the proposal for the god doesn't disprove its existence--a giant eagle god that literally holds the Earth on her back as she flies through space for example.)

[Starboard Tack]

62. I agree and I fall into the same category, which does not exclude spirituality.

[trotsky]

50. I am a non-believer. I'm not an absolutist.

Show me some evidence that a god exists, and I'm perfectly willing to accept the premise.

You should stop promoting your absolutist nonsense that non-believers are absolutist.

[Starboard Tack]

63. I am not trying to promote anything. On the contrary.

Some atheists are "positive atheists" who explicitly deny the existence of a god with the same vehemence we hear from religious evangelicals. They both prosletize and I find them both distasteful.

[trotsky]

64. Ah, I see.

Time for this classic again.

[Starboard Tack]

65. I would say enlightened rather than superior.

Superior doesn't inhabit my world.

[trotsky]

66. Naw, you're too much better than everyone else to feel superior.

Clearly.

[Starboard Tack]

67. You are welcome to your opinion, but you do not know me, or my feelings.

But when I feel a little down, I find a nice cup of tea usually perks me up.

[trotsky]

80. Meh, you've made your feelings pretty clear.

Take care.

[_ed_]

60. Not really

The proper logical conclsion is to be agnostic, but I'm agnostic about religion the same way I'm agnostic about pink unicorns flying around Mars. I'm agnostic about religion the way I'm agnostic about the existence of another galaxy where Han Solo and Luke Skywalker live.

That's why I call myself an atheist. Of course, if Jesus or Zeus comes to my house and sits on my couch and proves me wrong, I'll certainly come around to the other side.

[rrneck]

45. God is every bit as real as Gandalf.

That usually confuses the shit out of them.

[deacon_sephiroth]

51. Your post already says my arguement. K/R N/T

[Meshuga]

71. But to these people the God in their message is real and unicorns are not

They will persist no matter what you say to them in your argument.

In other words, the unicorn argument doesn't work. Therefore, continuing the conversation is a lose-lose situation. I think that a very dismissive "fuck off!" is a much more effective strategy. The messenger will hate you so much that he/she will not be as willing to provide you with the secret to reach salvation.

[Jim__]

81. "How many times have you been asked by a religious believer about your argument against the ...

... existence some god?"

Zero.

[darkstar3]

89. horseshit.

[Jim__]

95. No, true. Don't extrapolate from your limited experience to the whole world. - n/t

[darkstar3]

96. You debate people here, ergo, horseshit.

[Jim__]

97. No one here has ever asked me for my argument against the existence of god. - n/t

[ZombieHorde]

90. Country music exists, therefor god does not. nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

98. No evidence. Simple.

[edhopper]

104. My argument against God

is that I have yet to see a good argument FOR God.

[backscatter712]

108. First, there's no evidence for him.

The positive claim "God exists and does things in the universe" has the burden of proof, as it is an unfalsifiable claim, not the default, negative claim "God does not exist." That's just basic logic. Do we have to try to explain the point of Russell's Teapot, invisible pink unicorns, etc. yet again?

Second, I have an alternative theory, which I find far more plausible than the usual stories of omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent deities, who inexplicably sit on their asses when thousands get slammed by tsunamis, or babies starve to death in the Horn of Africa.

And that theory is that God is fictional. He is an imaginary construct, reinforced by various quirks in human psychology, so that belief is prevalent. Religion is a memetic virus, spread from generation to generation over the centuries, that has evolved to exploit vulnerabilities in human psychology very effectively.