What is the best atheists' argument against God existing?

395 posts / 0 new
Last post
mickron88's picture
"Who wistfully desires that

"Who wistfully desires that there be no god?"

Marius, i told you not to drank and AR....you're doing it wrong man....

algebe's picture
I wonder if "wistfully" is

I wonder if "wistfully" is meant to be "wishfully" or maybe "willfully".

mickron88's picture
"I wonder if "wistfully" is

"I wonder if "wistfully" is meant to be "wishfully" or maybe "willfully"."

Definitions of wistful

having or showing a feeling of vague or regretful longing.
a wistful smile
synonyms: nostalgic, yearning, longing, plaintive, regretful, rueful, melancholy, mournful, elegiac

Sapporo's picture
If god is defined as a being

If god is defined as a being named Dejess who claims to know when people are engaging in wistful thinking while attacking others for making categorical statements without evidence, then I also know god exists.

The only way that Dejess could know if an atheist was engaged in wistful thinking based on insufficient examination of the evidence is if Dejess has omniscience. So there's a serious possibility that Dejess "knows" himself to be god.

Cognostic's picture

For fk sake./ I have some bad news for you/ God really did exist but I just found his dead body and a suicide note on my bathroom floor. Apparently he could not take the rejection of the Atheists. Sorry Dejess, we were wrong and you were right. But look at the bright side. Now we are really right and you are still wrong. God is dead and I have the body to prove it. "Prove me Wrong"

arakish's picture
Dejess: "...that there is no

Dejess: "...that there is no evidence."

Remember what I posted?


Until you Absolutists can present any hard empirical evidence to support your claims, then your claims shall forever be preposterous, and summarily dismissed.
-RMF Runyan

Go back and re-read what I posted about "Onus Probandi Incumbit" (Burden of Proof)

Bring on the evidence. Prove it.

Oh, by the way, we atheists do not "believe", we "know" because what you say we "believe" is also backed by hard empirical evidence. Thus, we don't just "believe" what we "know", we "know" what we "know".

Thus, I "know" there is NO evidence for any kind of ultimate super-being.

Reiteration: I don't "believe" there is no deity, I "know" there is no deity.


Cognostic's picture
Remember. Your god is

Remember. Your god is omnipotent, omnipresent. invisible and noncorporal. Now he is also dead on my bathroom floor. I know he is there because I heard him fall just before he said 'This is God' and the letter flew out of the bathroom onto my desk. His fingerprints are on the letter but you can not see them if you do not believe and are not among the chosen. God is dead.

Jared Alesi's picture
I think I know who stole my

I think I know who stole my peyote. This guy sounds like Keefer Sutherland in Young Guns.

mykcob4's picture
So Dejess, another christian

So Dejess, another christian with a crackpot theory, has come here to tell atheists that we are wistful dreamers that 1) Don't have a concept of "god" and 2) That we don't have a clue what evidence is.
Dejess hasn't even taken the time to:
1) Specify his god or god concept.
2) To present any evidence whatsoever to back up his theory/concept.
3) Or know anything about the people he is making wild accusations about.
This "prove god doesn't exist" shit has been tried so many times before and has failed miserably. Christians just don't or don't want to understand that it is their responsibility to prove THIER theory. They can't and won't even try so they shift the blame the responsibility to atheists. It's like saying: "I have a magic unicorn in my pocket, prove that I don't."
Also, this generalized false assumption is tiring as well. Christians don't realize that most atheists were at one-time christian. That atheists are in general far more educated and knowledgeable about the christian god concept than active christians. And the fact that atheists have done the research about the christian god which led them to not believe in the myth any longer.
Dejess has skirted around and flat out ignored the elephant in the room. he complains that we can't give evidence that there is no god but he has yet to provide even one shred of evidence that there is a god, even evidence that we know that will be completely false in some way and therefore not evidence at all. I think this is on purpose and points out how disingenuous he really is.
It's clear that he came here to insult and proselytize, abundantly clear.

Sky Pilot's picture


"I know God exists"

Why do you believe in the ancient Middle Eastern ethnocentric Jewish deity called Yahweh, the God of the Hebrews and the God of the armies? Heck, even Noah's grandkids didn't believe in him and Noah was alive to tell them about his great boat adventure.

Or do you believe in one of these gods or goddesses? http://www.graveyardofthegods.org/deadgods/listofgods.html

All Gods have specific names so it's a good idea to use the particular name instead of the title "God". God can mean any deity or even any person. We are all Gods to some extent but there's no celestial deity of any kind in this solar system.

mykcob4's picture

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
"the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
"they found evidence of his plotting"
be or show evidence of.
"that it has been populated from prehistoric times is evidenced by the remains of Neolithic buildings"
synonyms: indicate, show, reveal, display, exhibit, manifest; More

"God in Christianity is the eternal being who created and preserves all things. Christians believe God to be both transcendent (wholly independent of, and removed from, the material universe) and immanent (involved in the world)."

Those are the definitions of evidence and the definition of the concept of the christian god.
These are the accepted method of finding evidence:
"sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
critical observation or examination.
"every aspect of local government was placed under scrutiny"
synonyms: examination, inspection, survey, study, perusal; More

In short, every scrap of evidence must be subjected to scrutiny. The evidence must be testable, corroborated, verified, empirical, and peer-reviewed for authenticity. Nothing that is pure conjecture or prima facia is acceptable on its own merit. Just making a claim isn't evidence at all. "God exists" is not evidence and it isn't "wistful insistence". On the contrary.

not logical or reasonable.
synonyms: unreasonable, illogical, groundless, baseless, unfounded, unjustifiable; More
(of a number, quantity, or expression) not expressible as a ratio of two integers, and having an infinite and nonrecurring expansion when expressed as a decimal. Examples of irrational numbers are the number π and the square root of 2.
an irrational number." You claim that WE atheists are irrational yet it is YOUR Dejess that have made claims and hold to a belief that is baseless which is the very definition of irrational.

I actually doubt very much that Dejess is still here to read or even if he is WILL read any of this rebuttal. He tends to just ignore facts and blurt out false accusations and claims not backed by any facts or evidence.

I just think it is high time we put him in his place which is to point out that it is he, his theory, his accusations, his claims, that are "wistful insistence", baseless and irrational!
Now for my rant:
I am fucking sick and tired of ignoramuses like you that come to this site pretending and thinking that you are superior, intelligent, with your sanctimonious and condescending bullshit, insulting atheists on the grounds that you just have to have someone to hate insult and feel superior to. You can kiss my sacrilegious ass!
By default, there is no fucking god! Get that through your thick fucking empty-headed skulls!
Everyone is born an atheist! You have to be indoctrinated, brainwashed, tricked, coerced, threatened, bribed, one of, part of, or all of the above to be a christian. To return to atheism one has to be educated, intellectually curious and do a great deal of soul-searching and investigation. You just don't wake up one day and say "Oh, I'll just be an atheist." You have to work at it. It takes years of personal sacrifice to understand that christianity is a myth. So get that through your thick empty-headed skulls as well!
What a fucking MORON!

LogicFTW's picture
@Dejess original post.

@Dejess original post.

Looks like you at least respond somewhat to the thread you started. Okay I will play along.
I don't know if there is any one "best" reason, but there are lots of very compelling arguments why there is no god.

- First and foremost, there is no evidence for god, and certainly no evidence for god creating man. There is a mountain of evidence that man created the various "god" ideas, and the evidence is so overwhelming, that even a young child could easily understand there is no god.

- Reasonable, rational, logical thinking also easily concludes there is no god as depicted by man.

- There is no one religion that there is enough people that agree on their depiction of god in a united manner, without disagreement that has obtained 1% total followership from all people that have lived. Every church's depiction of god, and particular "holy book" of instructions on some level will say they are right and the other 99+% of all people that ever lived got some fundamentals wrong.

- The god idea has not shown any real world effect of a god. Prayers have had no effect in the real world, no particular group of people have been blessed by god with better lives over a different group of people. No group of people have had more miracles or better lives in any measurable way that came from divine god influence. God and all his special powers has been regulated strictly to the unknowable "afterlife" to people alive today.

- Religious leaders, especially in the past, have profited greatly from the various religion ideas, gaining a lot of power and wealth, the only people that have actually benefited from any particular "god idea" are the ones that pass out collection plates or "accept" donations. The followers may gain short term benefit being told what they want to hear, but long term, suffer for their beliefs.

- God ideas have been coming and going for a long, long time. Pretty much since the dawn of human civilization. Almost no one believes in the Egyptian gods anymore, the roman gods, the greek gods, the norse gods.

- God ideas are incredibly geographical, especially in the past. A particular god idea did not exist until the idea got spread, (often via war and occupation,) there was no christian, or jewish or even islamic type gods at all in the Americas until the human created the technology of boats that could cross oceans existed.

- As human understanding of the world increases and as knowledge spreads, people's god concept keeps decreasing. Even the mighty roman catholic church has to admit to evolution, a 4.5 billion year old planet, dna, atoms. Various God ideas has gone from performing all kinds miracles back when human knowledge was limited, to performing no miracles at all, now that human knowledge has increased and god's power and stature continues to decrease. No longer in the high mountains, no longer in the sky above, no longer even within our solar system. But ever increasingly unreachable and undetectable ever increasingly hidden as our ability to detect, see and understand grows.

I can add plenty more but I will stop here. Feel free to ask for clarification or additional information.

Cognostic's picture

THE MAGIC DRAGON (FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER) All the same arguments as the arguments for the existence of god. Then ask for the listener to prove them wrong.

I have a magic dragon in my back yard. It is a creator dragon that is omnipotent, omnipresent, invisible and non-corporal. I can prove it to you because you can see the chain I once used to tie him to the tree. Before he broke out of the chain he left footprints in the ground. Then there is also the broken fence that he sat on. While I can not see him I know he is still there. New footprints occasionally appear and the level of water in his water dish will decrease more on hot days than on cold days. It is obvious that he is more thirsty on hot days. Finally, there are all the miracles. People have been cured of depression, cancer, arthritis, and many other abnormalities by praying to the magic dragon. All you have to do is leave a small donation of a thousand dollars or more in one of his footprints. PROVE ME WRONG! I have real evidence that the dragon exists and that he created the universe.

Tin-Man's picture


Awesome! I've always wanted a magic dragon. . Does your dragon fly? If I believe in him enough, do you think I could get a ride? Hey, if you believe in my Oompa-Loompa, I'll see if I can get him to make you some chocolate treats.

Braddism's picture
Dejess, the absurdity of a

Dejess, the absurdity of a guy in the sky reading from a book of who was good and who was bad is self-validating in it's inability to be a reality. Beyond the fact that not a scintilla of physical evidence exists to support the god notion, theologians stretch the farce even further and create a heaven, hell, guy-n-the-sky, so forth and so on. All of which are antiquated and only held conviction in a time when you dared not question the doctrine or they'd chop off your head. The telescope and microscope pretty much ruined 90% of biblical claims, critical thinking (for those with the intellectual capacity to formulate their own conclusions) all but eradicated what was left. I feel bad that you and others are stuck in your bubbles of self-loathing, believing that your all loving god will condemn one to an eternity in hell for breaking one of his worldly rules. Eternity...doe's this sound reasonable, fair, or REALISTIC!

Kataclismic's picture
The best evidence is when the

The best evidence is when the believer asks you for evidence to not believe in.

Marius Dejess's picture
The OP is about my request

The OP is about my request for you atheists to present the best argument against God existing.

You atheists say that there is no evidence, and I see that as the beginning of the best argument: so you are in the right direction.

Okay, let us you all atheists and I a theist, work together to concur on what is evidence.

When we have a mutually agreed on concept of what is evidence, then you will be in a position to work out the best argument against God existing.

Until then you are not into the OP, no matter that you write so many words.

Let you start with your stock knowledge on what is evidence, and I will join you, in order that sooner than later we will have a mutually agreed on concept of what is evidence.

Start with asking yourselves, what is the target of evidence?

algebe's picture


Wait a minute. You're asking questions and making demands about methodology without really responding specifically to any of the posts here. That seems arrogant. Why don't you deal with some of the arguments raised and maybe answer a question or two yourself.

You said you know that god exists. How?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Dejess

@ Dejess
Evidence has a definition.

It doesn't need to be redefined to suit your agenda. The definition does not require your agreement.

Start from there and produce evidence for your 'god'.

Then we can commence a discussion.

Sheldon's picture
"The strength or weight of

"The strength or weight of argument required by one side to convince the other side. The concept of burden of proof marks a balance between the competing points of view in a critical discussion, or in other adversarial types of dialogue. As more weight is gained by the argumentation of one side, its point of view is justified more strongly, and the burden of proof passes to the other side. As one side rises, the other falls, and the burden of proof passes accordingly. Recognition and use of burden of proof can be a powerful factor in reasoned persuasion. There are two main uses for the notion. The first is when, having gained a temporary advantage, we announce that the burden of proof now lies with the other side, and simply wait to see what, if anything, they produce; if nothing emerges we claim the victory, even though our own reasoning may have been far from conclusive. The second is where we attempt to claim that our own view enjoys some antecedent presumption in its favour, so that the burden of proof lies initially with our opponents. The dictates of common sense are often held to enjoy this privileged position. See also circular reasoning ; informal fallacies"

You believe one deity is real and all the others fictional. You offer neither evidence for your belief nor for your disbelief, yet demand those who in the absence of anyone demonstrating sufficient evidence for your deity's existence disbelieve that claim as well as all the others. This is not just inconsistent it's illogical as it's epitemologically false.

Read the paragraph above, in both categorisations the burden of proof rests with you.

1) You believe a deity is real, we ask for evidence, you provide none. Thus our reasoning is irrelevant and the burden of proof is yours.
2) You demand proof of the non-existence of a deity, yet offer no evidence for its existence. Further you disbelieve in all deities except yours without offering the proof you demand for yours, irrational and inconsistent.

You're not arguing against atheism, you're denying the fields if philosophical epistemology and of logic.

Until you can demonstrate any evidence for your claim there is nothing to discuss. Sorry but no one is going to be fooled by this tedious game of yours.

Atheism is not in itself a claim or a belief, get over it.

LogicFTW's picture

I will play again. But I will keep it short as you do not respond to actual postings for the most part.
I play your game, by your rules giving you all the advantage. Why? Because the argument for god is so weak even when we let you set the rules for the argument, it is so weak any intellectual can run circles around you and any argument you try to put up. Funny part is most theist do not even realize this.

I can copy and paste in a dictionary definition of evidence if you want.
But I will put in my own as it fits to this situation:
Evidence: Testable, repeatable, tangible, shareable, real world results that leads support to a claim.
Not only that, but for a particular claim, the evidence should be stronger and more numerous then the evidence for negation/opposite claim.

Additionally to prevent everyone from going insane, any claim of something must be proven, people do not not need to disprove a claim made by another. Just like you do not have to disprove the tooth fairy's existence, it is upon the person that claims the tooth fairy is real that needs to provide the evidence.

Jared Alesi's picture
The moment we agree on what

The moment we agree on what evidence means is the moment you use the dictionary definition of it.

Dave Matson's picture
Jared Alesi,

Jared Alesi,

The continuation: "And, you had better provide plenty of evidence as it is normally defined if you even hope to sell us your god idea."

David Killens's picture
Define "target of evidence".

Define "target of evidence".

And while you are at it, please submit to us your personal definition of "god".

chimp3's picture
First you must define your

First you must define your god! It's size, qualities, what it is made from, where it is. If your description is substantial and is falsifiable, then evidence may be asserted for or against it. Until then, I say the universe operates as if no gods are necessary.

Dave Matson's picture


My arguments would depend on which god you have in mind. The gods of Islam and Christianity are hung by their holy books. The unbiased mind need not look further unless the claim is made that those holy books were not written by their god but, instead, reflect human limitations. But, a book that does not rise above human limitations can hardly be accepted as a divine product. A god that can't be trusted with information about this world cannot be trusted with claims about the "next world."

An argument, which I gave some time ago on another thread, demonstrates that careful reasoning does not support (at the present time) supernatural deities of any kind. (Thread = "Science Gives God the Bump!" 08-07-2016 18:47)

You claim to know that your god exists. For thousands of years people have made similar claims about their gods. If you want to convince us that yours is special, then you must supply extraordinary evidence. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as Carl Sagan and others before him have noted.) The burden of selling your god is on your shoulders. We have no obligation to buy. So, convince us!

Since you specifically asked for counter-arguments, I supplied two.

Hitchslap's picture
Not my burden of proof.

Not my burden of proof.

Sheldon's picture
The Christian deity is simply

The Christian deity is simply plagiarized from an earlier fictional Jewish deity you yourself don't believe is real.

Sapporo's picture
@Dejess the first step in

@Dejess the first step in regards the "god" conjecture is not to agree on the concept of what is evidence. The first step is to have a valid hypothesis based on observation. Until you do so, we can conclude that the conjecture is false.

All this roundabout nonsense about knowing that god exists and then asking others what is valid evidence for god only gives the impression you don't know the answer yourself. So how can you claim to know?

Dave Matson's picture


You are like a vacuum cleaner salesman knocking at our door. It's your job to explain how wonderful your product is, to convince us that we can't get along without it. We are under no obligation to buy! So, either make your best sales pitch or hit the road!

Instead of an informative and convincing sales pitch you present a mystery box that you refuse to open. We can't even see the vacuum cleaner let along get a demo! Instead of describing your product and telling us all the wonderful things it can do, you begin by asking us to engage in a long-winded, theoretical discussion as to what constitutes a good sales pitch! As I said, we are under no obligation to buy anything from you, and if this is the best sales pitch you can make then why don't you hit the road. You are just wasting our time.


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.