What is the best atheists' argument against God existing?

395 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dejess's picture
Dear Sapporo, I see you to be

Dear Sapporo, I see you to be consistent and coherent with your demand:

From Sapporo
"Fri, 04/13/2018 - 10:14
As has been explained to you, atheists don't necessarily have a belief that gods do not exist. They do however lack a belief in the existence of gods. People [starting with babies of course] are born atheists."

By way of comic relief: Dear Sapporo, you are in a comatose condition; and for you since you never know any conscious existence at all, babies are born also like you, comatose.

I like very much to exchange thoughts with you, on my assumption that you are being ridiculous for the sake of playing the comedy of labeling yourself an atheist, with all its attendant comic props and roles and scripts, like saying that you as an atheist just simply, purely, really, 100% deficient of IQ, as to not know at all anything to do with the question, God exists or not.

Okay, now I am going to present to you, one concept of God, from a theist, Dejess:
"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

You are not any Japanese kid living and even certainly born and raised in New York City; but say you are a Japanese kid born and raised and pure uncontaminated ethnic Japanese, who also knows about their nation to have a god, the Sun Goddess, on whose account also the once upon a time in recent history, their militaristic leaders who practiced government by assassination, indoctrinated them Japanese: that they had the divine mission to take over South East Asia, and also bombing Pearl Harbor to prevent the USA from being a nuisance to their divine ambition to establish their Empire of Japan, which would make them masters of South East Asia.

So, as a native born Japanese kid in Japan who just happened to have learned English, but still totally normally with functional IQ,, tell me what do you think about this concept of God, namely:
"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning"?

Sheldon's picture
""God in concept is first and

""God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.""

No he isn't, Hitchens's razor applied. "What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

No offence but are you using babel fish to translate your posts into English?

You still haven't demonstrated any objective evidence for your deity? We can only conclude you have none, so your belief is the very definition of irrational.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
"God in concept is first and

"God in concept is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

Firstly, You need to define god.
Secondly, Can you prove it was god and not anything else.
And finally, Do you have any measurable/detectable way to prove such phenomena.

Otherwise, You are simply playing the 'god of the gaps' card, which is at best intellectually dishonest.

Dejess's picture
Dear Sheldon, you don't have

Dear Sheldon, you don't have anything with your own thinking at all.

Cease and desist already with depending upon irrational though highly emotive fellow atheists.

No matter that they managed to have made good money from people like you.

I like to concentrate on Sapporo.

Sapporo's picture
@Dejess

@Dejess
You say that "god" is "is first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning." This does not qualify as a valid hypothesis, ergo it is false. Provide your claimed empirical evidence.

It seems that you believe in "god", but you are not interested in helping people find the truth. It seems that you believe in "god", but you are intent on repeatedly lying and calling others who do not share your belief "immoral", along with other insults.

The truth is, you have no interest in finding the truth or in living morally. So what good does believing in "god" do you? It is clear you have no empirical evidence of your "god", and no moral argument either.

Sheldon's picture
"Dear Sheldon, you don't have

"Dear Sheldon, you don't have anything with your own thinking at all."

I'll need that in English before I can respond to your vapid unrelenting hubris.

"Cease and desist already with depending upon irrational though highly emotive fellow atheists."

What?

"No matter that they managed to have made good money from people like you."

What?

"I like to concentrate on Sapporo."

I literally couldn't give a flying fuck what a troll claims to like, if I may speak candidly.

Now fake christian, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for your superstition?

You still haven't demonstrated any objective evidence for your deity? We can only conclude you have none, so your belief is the very definition of irrational.

Sapporo's picture
When a person who believes in

When a person who believes in "god the creator" insults people for being poorly designed, they can only weaken their argument.

LogicFTW's picture
I am a bit bored, so I am

I am a bit bored, so I am going to respond to the the theist posting here even if some/all are quite possibly trolling for responses: Dejess, Former Atheist and Brad.

Let us step away briefly from proving/disproving god etc.

You three posters (Dejess, Former Atheist, and Brad.) Owe me 1 million dollars each. I do not have to prove why you each owe me 1 million dollars. It is up to you guys to prove that you do not each owe me 1 million dollars.

How would you guys go about doing that? If I do not have to prove that you guys owe me 1 million dollars each, seriously, how would you guys prove that you do not each owe me 1 million dollars? Can you really prove that you do not in fact owe me 1 million dollars? Remember, I do not have to prove that you guys owe me 1 million dollars. There is no receipt, point of sale, stuff that I have to show that I gave in exchange for the 1 million etc.

Sounds really unfair right? Sounds stupid right? Sounds perhaps like insanity? Like no way to operate in the world?
I hope at this point you guys agree with the sentence above.

Let us take this one step further. Prove to me the tooth fairy is not real. I do not have to prove to you the tooth fairy is real, no instead you have to prove that it is not real. I also get to make up the rules as we go. "The tooth fairy can be invisible and undetectable at will" The tooth fairy can only be rarely seen by little children that lost a tooth. The tooth fairy has magical powers." Even if I did not make up the rules as I go, how would you go about proving to me the tooth fairy is not real?

See where I am going with this? Next up, prove to me that Loki is not real. The flying spaghetti monster. The muslim version of god, etc etc etc

Now we are at your guys particular god idea. Remember your own conclusion on my insane demand that you guys have to prove you do not owe me 1 million dollars each. How stupid and unfair that sounds. I may be asking for the impossible here, but do you three yet understand asking someone to disprove a claim made without evidence is?

.

Now, there have been many cases where theist have attempted to provide evidence of their particular deity(s.) Shroud of Turin came up on these forums recently. When people present evidence like that, it is fair to ask a person that does not believe the same as them; to disprove or embrace the evidence supplied, to at least have a discussion of the merits of the evidence presented. People oftentimes like to point to their various holy books, or bring up cosmological arguments etc. We can at least there have some sort of basis to start on. Something to talk about and discuss.

As hopefully this post illustrates, asking to disprove something that is presented w/o any evidence is nothing short of insane, gibberish, childlike, and destructive to reasonable discourse and communication of thoughts, ideas and opinions.

Tin-Man's picture
@Logic Re: "Let us step away

@Logic Re: "Let us step away briefly from proving/disproving god etc....."

Dog-gonnit, man! That was freakin" awesome! Gonna steal that one and try my best to use it somewhere down the line. Excellent!

LogicFTW's picture
Please do use part or all of

Please do use part or all of what I wrote as you see fit.

It is maddening to me, and I imagine most of us, when people get basic fundamental communication and sharing of thought expression wrong.

It all still comes back to: an argument presented without evidence can, (and probably should,) be dismissed without evidence.

The potential of human imagination is infinite, no one should have to contend with infinite imagination when trying to have a reasonable debate about a difference of opinion, such argument leads to nowhere, infinite loops of people shouting past each other. Evidence is needed to have constructive civil discourse. The better the evidence, the more irrefutable it is, the better the argument can reach a good, constructive conclusion. Even if it the conclusion of the evidence leads to an answer one side, (or both!) do not want to hear.

The evidence that man created god is very compelling, very complete, and quite irrefutable.

Even I am saddened that the wonderful idea of "paradise/heaven" or even just afterlife, is only the figment of human imagination in terms of evidence available for it. It is a very comforting thought if you did happen to believe in it. That we are immortal, that the ones we lost are not really gone, that there is a sort of final justice in the world that often times does not have justice. Instead of a harsher reality, like that the golden rule really is: "he who has the gold gets to make the rules." Instead of nice fanciful warm feeling: "treat others as you would like to be treated."

(Trade gold backed currency for: note of debt backed currency, to modernize these ancient quotes.)

Brad 's picture
So what’s an atheists view on

So what’s an atheists view on Jesus?

He claimed to be God
Performed miracles, left behind teachings that are good
Nothing malicious
Led a sinless life and started a movement that lasted through hundreds of years.
Jews that were devout in their religion converted to Christianity.
Paul, as an example was persecuting Christians and converted
When you look at all the evidence as a whole it’s very hard to say that it all isn’t true.

In a court case, when all the evidence is pointing towards the defendant...pretty much painting a portrait of how guilty he is. We don’t have a video or didn’t see it with our own two eyes. Don’t we still convict him and sentence him or her?
I know I know
All I’m trying to say is to open your mind to any possibility and just look into it. What the historians say about that time period and see how Jesus’ life effected everyone in it.
The printing press wasn’t invented til the fifteenth century, people back than all went off of memory. This kind of movement wouldn’t have made it this far if there wasn’t truth behind it. (That’s my opinion )
Christianity is the only religion or belief system that doesn’t say you make it to heaven by your good works or deeds.
It’s a gift
If you accept it and believe of course you are gonna change and the good works will just flow from you
No one is perfect, Jesus came along and claimed to be!
Jews and people from other places claim he was just a good teacher or maybe or a sorcerer.
They didn’t say he didn’t exist and by calling him a sorcerer proves he was performing miracles..
For me I don’t have to see it with my own two eyes, I can read the teachings he left behind and see that he wasn’t evil. He did fulfill prophecies that were written about him hundreds of years before he walked the earth.
There really is a lot of evidence that points to this truth

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Brad

@ Brad
There is not one piece of contemporary evidence for a Jesus figure. Not. One.

I will take the essence of some of your claims. I'm not going into a historical treatise because, frankly, I think you will stick your fingers in your ears and scream rather than follow the trail to the truth.

The earliest fragments of the gospels (and I mean a fragment) is dated to between 150CE and 250CE (The Rylands Fragment).
The synoptic gospels all were copied from Mark and contain significant errors caused by later editing and interpolations.
All the four gospels your particular christian sect follow have been significantly edited, particularly in the Roman period just before Constantine declared Roman christianity the state religion under the control of the God Emperor.
The epistles of Paul; only six can be attributed to a single author. 1 is arguable. 3 more are unlikely and 3 are definitely not by the same person. Note: "Paul" doesn't mention miracles or the resurrection...we don't even know if his name was Paul...he isn't mentioned by anyone else at the time.

For details see my thread "History Food for Debate"
In 492 the Bishop of Rome declared over 100 "gospels" and texts anathema and commanded them burnt and their adherents executed.

Many early christians (gentiles) also followed various forms of gnosticism which deny the divinity of the Christ. Many early christian writers do not even mention a Jesus at all. The jewish christians in Rome were reviled (see Tacitus) for their practises of consuming the blood and flesh of their prophet and their alleged sexual practices.
NOte that is history not supposition founded on a bad understanding of history.

"People" did not go off memory, there was a large and literate middle class in Rome and its territories. That kind of statement you made displays the ignorance of the Pastors that teach you. It also betrays the phrase "open mind" does not seem to include you as any one can look that up and see the claim refuted instanter.

The problems you have Brad, is that you and others think there is a single link between the alleged events of approx 33CE and the present bibles you worship. There is not. A days worth of actual history (not the wishful thinking you have indulged yourself in here) would show you that.

Now, if you have any serious questions or even evidence for your claims I would love to hear them.

LogicFTW's picture
@Brad

@Brad

Nice story. Key word: "story".
Want to hear another story about saint nicholas, or is it kringle? How about Santa Claus? Millions believe in Santa Claus!

You say in a court case when all the evidence is pointing towards the defendant.
Let us look at that. The evidence is: a highly translated, edited, book that heavily plagiarized the ideas of other religions before it. The original authors are long dead, it just so happens lots of folks believe in the book. Not because there is any real world evidence but because they been born into the dogma that teaches it. What other "evidence" is there? An old cloth that has a face imprint that can not be brought into the court room or cross examined by top impartial scientist? There obviously is no one alive today that "saw" jesus that could provide testimony. The various bibles are full of huge flaws, contradictions and edits as important points in the bible are later found to be flat wrong.

The case would be thrown out in a heartbeat if that was all the evidence the prosecution can muster. It would be a laughing stock. Replace your religion with scientology, how stupid does scientology sound to you? Well that is your own religion to people not in the middle of it, blind to it.

There is no evidence that points to this "truth." Only the musings of someone's imagination (that was blatantly ripped it off from the folks before him.)

Brad 's picture
So the practices of consuming

So the practices of consuming blood and flesh that Tacitus spoke about
Communion is how Christians remember Jesus dying on the cross and being resurrected
So doesn’t that prove that something happened?
Tacitus is obviously writing about something he doesn’t understand
I mean I know who Yoda is but I don’t speak cling on.
Romans belittled the Jews and anything that came from them

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Brad

@ Brad

Obviously you have not read Tacitus. I would suggest you do. The ONE passage where Tacitus refers to the jews in Rome in 60CE is easy to find.
You are correct the Romans ( as reported by Tacitus) found the ritual of even symbolically consuming the blood and flesh of the jewish Messiah disgusting. The fact that Tacitus reported the populaces' general attitude to such behaviour proves nothing beyond the fact that there were "christian' jews in Rome at that time performing that ritual.They were blamed for the fire. It cannot and does not prove a "happening" or historical event at all. Tacitus was writing some 40 years after the Great Fire in 60 CE so approx 70 - 80 years after the alleged events in Jerusalem you worship.

There is no contemporary record or testimony of any witness to those events you worship in Jerusalem, Not one.

"Romans belittled the Jews and anything that came from them" again your lack of historical accuracy is astounding for one making bold statements.
In fact the Jews ( Including the christian sect) in t Rome and the Provinces had special permissions to conduct their day to day observances, their sabbath and not sacrifice to the Emperor as required by all other religions at the time. There are records of many Romans attending synagogues to hear the tales of Moses etc and the Law read out loud as they still do today. The special dispensation was revoked after 60CE (blamed for the Great Fire) for a while then reinstated.
So once again. Simple to look up and easy to confirm and contradicts another of your rather wild claims.

I would suggest Brad, that rather than just spouting the "party line" which even in our short conversation has been proven so sadly wrong, you approach the matter with an 'open mind' (to coin your phrase) the correct attitude to history and historical research. You will learn a lot more and very quickly.

As I said I am open on this forum or by PM to answer any questions you may have and give you some pointers to discovering actual history not propaganda. .

(Edit for clarity)

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Brad Actually I must

@ Brad Actually I must correct myself Tacitus did not specifically mention the act of communion. That was left to several other writers of the time, here is an extract of Tacitus' exact words from Book 15 Chapter 44 , Remember Tacitus is REPORTING events in Rome, not vouching for the accuracy of the jew's beliefs, (yes the christians in Rome at the time were JEWISH! )
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."

The "hated for their abominations" included the consumption of their gods flesh and blood, child sacrifice and orgies. These are well documented elsewhere. Amazing what you learn about your past eh Brad?

(Edited for clarity)

Algebe's picture
@Old man shouts:

@Old man shouts:

Above all the Romans hated Christians because they were.....atheists! They refused to worship the Olympian gods or the divine emperors like normal, decent people.

https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/why-ea...

The cited page is full of Christian BS, but if you search for "atheism" you'll find the reference about half-way down in a translation of 2nd century Latin document.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Algebe

@ Algebe
I agree. The jews had special dispensation to not sacrifice and do certain rites unlike every other religion in Rome and the provinces at the time. Many early gentile christians did attend and participate in the expected public rites, but as usual some of the stiff necked "never bow my knee before a false idol" lot got everyone a bad name and ended up being set upon by dogs as well as blamed for the great fire! The jewish dispensation was reinstated after a few years and carried on for quite a while.
So many christians have no idea of the convoluted origins of their own faith, I despair sometimes at their flatulent ignorance when they regurgitate as 'fact' a discredited, obsolete, bit of misheard nonsense repeated by their Pastor in "bible history class"

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
The best evidence to support

The best evidence to support the assertion that there is no god is that there is absolutely no evidence of a god.

At best, theists could postulate the possible existence of a Jesus character or that of Muhammed, and so fourth.

However, Saying Person A exists does not lead to the conclusion that something that does not comport to the laws of nature and the reality that we all experience, also exists.

That is not even false!

There is nothing caused within nature/the natural world or universe, that does not have a prior natural explanation.
To say, "God must have done it" is simply displaying your own personal incredulity and lack of intellect on such matters.

IF there was a god, and I accept the scientific position of that we cannot possibly know with 100% accuracy,
then it would most likely being that of Spinoza and Einstein.

However, giving that all evidence has yet to demonstrate any possibility of such a deity, I think we ought to be good Bayesians and say that given that the probability of there being a god is so small that it isn't worth following up.

Sheldon's picture
1.He claimed to be God

1.He claimed to be God
A..So did Charles Manson.

2.Performed miracles,
A..No he didn't unless you can demonstrate something other than anecdotal claims, like objective evidence.

3.left behind teachings that are good Nothing malicious
A..You mean like "slaves obey your masters, even the cruel ones" or the idea of torturing people after they die forever? Those sound malicious to me.

4.Led a sinless life
A..According to who? If he set the rules himself that's no indication of morality. And as I indicated above he said demonstrably immoral things and endorsed vile barbaric Mosaic laws.

5.and started a movement that lasted through hundreds of years.
A..So what?Stalinism lasted a fair while as well, does that make it and him moral?

Brad 's picture
Slavery was different back

Slavery was different back than
People would sell themselves and their family into slavery to pay a debt or when they went bankrupt.
There was a jubilee every 7 years in which the slaves would be set free.
Slavery was not anything like what we have today

CyberLN's picture
I would suggest you start a

I would suggest you start a new thread with this.

Sheldon's picture
That's a pathetic

That's a pathetic rationalisation, can anyone really believe they justify the endorsement of slavery by a being they claim has limitless power and knowledge because it was culturally acceptable by humans of that epoch? It's quite frankly one of the most idiotic arguments religious apologists present, and this is before we point out that their justification doesn't remotely reflect what the biblical texts endorsing slavery say. They specifically set out rules on how to buy, own and pass on other humans as property, and the inference that female slaves were used as sex slaves is fairly clear from the text as well.

"Slavery was not anything like what we have today"

Indeed not, at least not in secular democracies anyway. Indentured servitude for people who became unable to pay debt by the way is deeply immoral, but is not what the bible endorses at all when it mentions slavery.

Algebe's picture
@Brad: Slavery was different

@Brad: Slavery was different back than

Yeah. It was all sunshine and roses and jolly times with kind masters.

Crap. Slavery in Rome was every bit as awful as slavery in America and the Caribbean. Slaves were prisoners of war from Gaul, Britain, Africa, Eastern Europe, and other places. They lived in terrible conditions with few if any rights. Look up Vedius Pollio. He used to punish slaves by throwing them alive into a pool of voracious eels. Captured runaway slaves were usually tortured and killed. Most prostitutes and gladiators were slaves. Just try and imagine the life of a galley slave. Charlton Heston didn't even come close to portraying the horror in Ben Hur. Imagine sleeping, eating, shitting while chained to a bench and an oar in a galley. Imagine what happened when galleys sank or caught fire.

Some slaves were able to buy their freedom or were granted it for meritorious service or when their masters died, but most stayed slaves throughout their short and brutal lives.

Jesus (if he existed) must have witnessed slavery first-hand. I wonder why he never spoke out against it.

Brad 's picture
And by performing that ritual

And by performing that ritual, doesn’t that prove what the gospel teaches?
The ritual actually existing shows that people than believed

Jesus came
Was good
Died for our sins on the cross
Was resurrected
And Bridges all of us to God?

I mean that’s what it stands for

Qu@si's picture
brad..if i did something good

brad..if i did something good, am i a good person?

if i did something bad..am i a bad person? what constitutes good deeds? i mean what is the criteria so that you can enter heaven?

do rapist/murderer be saved and go to heaven?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Brad

@ Brad

"And by performing that ritual, doesn’t that prove what the gospel teaches?
The ritual actually existing shows that people than believed"

proving a belief held by a small sect some 100 years after the supposed events means precisely nothing. It proves that, amongst several hundred other sects, religions and others a group of Jews were performing this ritual. That is all. It is not proof of the events you revere.

Sacrifices, rituals and purifications were carried out every day by various religions in Rome. Because we know the rituals and the followers existed are they all now proven to be true gods? That is your own logic!

Brad 's picture
You know in your heart

You know in your heart whether you are good or bad.
A bad person can do good deeds.
Only you know what’s in your heart
We have logic, reason and a sense of morality to figure that out ourselves..
Having those 3 things prove Gods existence in a way that they are not seen or materialized but we know they are real right?
Like Love, I know you have felt that at some point in your life. You can’t see it but you know it’s there
If we just evolve from stardust how can all these things be true in our lives today?
As for the murderers and the rapist, I believe they can be saved.
It takes a very strong person to stand there and forgive someone that has just murdered their son but it’s happened!
Trust me, I have a lot of anger towards people that sin in such a unforgiving way.
It’s very hard to not be angry
But I’m not meant to be a judge of man, only God can judge me or anyone for that matter, when it comes to our souls.
The way to make it into heaven is to believe in Jesus and that his blood covers all of our sins
There is no other way, Christianity is a gift.. good deeds alone do not get you there

LogicFTW's picture
I consider myself neutral,

I consider myself neutral, and think I am a better person than most, mainly because I was afforded the opportunity to be good.

Logic and reason very much points to no god. If you actually have decent logic and reasoning skills. Morality in my mind has nothing to do with it.

You actually can see love. On a computer in a medical lab.

Really you want to save serial rapist and murders? How about an abortion clinic doctor that has performed 1000's of abortions? (If you are one of those that think abortion is murder.)
Very easy for me to not be angry.

No deeds get you into heaven. You have been lied to and swindled, there is no heaven, stop falling for it.

Sushisnake 's picture
@Brad

@Brad
"We have logic, reason and a sense of morality to figure that out ourselves..
Having those 3 things prove Gods existence..."
How do logic, reason and morality prove god's existence?

"Like Love, I know you have felt that at some point in your life. You can’t see it but you know it’s there..."
We give and are given evidence of love: things that are said, things that are done, affection. Support. Hell, Brad- I don't even know you and the young lady in the photo, but I can see you love each other, as clearly as I can see my fingers on the keyboard.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.