What is the best atheists' argument against God existing?

395 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sheldon's picture
"Well it all comes down to

"Well it all comes down to the simple fact that none of you can prove that there isn’t a God "

Nonsense, even assuming this were true anyone can make an unfalisifiable claim it's easy.

There is an invisible unicorn in front of you that undetectable in any empirical way.

Disprove it....or believe it there of course...
"t is fact that the New Testament is the most well kept document throughout history. "

Bullshit, it's nothing of the sort, you're just making up grandiose claims and not even pretending to have evidence.
"Some of it being written within a couple years of the resurrection.."

Begging the question firstly as you'd have to evidence there was a crucifixion, secondly not one single word by anyone was written until decades after christians claimed Jesus was crucified, now you're just making up blatant lies, and I'm starting to think you're trolling.
"Everything in the gospel was written almost directly after Jesus walked the earth, there’s accounts from all over the place."

Both claims are incorrect, please tell me you're being facetious?
"And guess what? almost all of them were martyred!
Would you die for a lie?"

False dichotomy fallacy, how do you know they were really martyred firstly it's just a claim, secondly just because someone believes something doesn't make it true, even if they were stupid enough to get themselves killed for believing it.
"Something created all of us and the universe we are in."

No it didn't, Hitchens's razor applied "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
"Evolution is faulty, micro evolution...ok
Macro evolution No"

Creationist lies, the entire scientific world accepts species evolution as a scientific fact based on over 150 years of scientific scrutiny. More importantly if it were entirely reversed tomorrow there would still be no objective evidence for any deity.

You're simply parroting creationist cliches and the common logical fallacies that religious apologists love to to use, but don't understand. How can anyone base their entire life on a belief with no objective evidence, and be this ill-informed about it?

mickron88's picture
"Would you die for a lie?"

"Would you die for a lie?"
would you? hypocrite......
would you kill your love one if god ask you to kill them???

"Saying how they saw him resurrected from the dead ."

they really did saw him?? see how delusional you are?
you're a grown up man, how come you truly believe this things?

"Evolution is faulty, micro evolution...ok, Macro evolution No"

ignorance fallacy!!!!....

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Brad

@ Brad

It is painfully obvious you know almost nothing of your religion's history.

"It is fact that the New Testament is the most well kept document throughout history."

No it is not. Not even close. Supply proof of this claim. Fact: the testaments have been edited, added to, marginalised (i.e margin notes taken into the text at a later date) translated, edited and finally culled to suit the Roman Constantine and later God Emperors.

"It’s accuracy in everything it says can be supported."
Again, no it can't. Not even close. Supply proof of this claim.

"Some of it being written within a couple years of the resurrection"

Again, not true at all. Not even close. Supply proof of this claim. The earliest text (one of Paul's) was maybe written some 30 years after the supposed events and doesn't mention the 'resurrection' at all. The earliest mention of any of the miracles can be dated to texts written between 100 and 300 years after the supposed events, There is a whole thread on this subject if you want to educate yourself.

"Food for Debate-History" Also has discussions about early contemporary sources from people livint around the time.

Armando Perez's picture
@Brad +

@Brad +

"... micro evolution...ok
Macro evolution No"

I have to repeat myself to explain you that if you accept the so-called "micro evolution, you end up with the macro evolution too, because macro evolution is what happens when you micro-evolve during a long enough time.

The whole thing of evolution is based mainly on the fact the DNA copying process that happens when sexual cells are produced or an asexual organism divides, is not 100% accurate, so there are always mistakes (mutations).

Let see, again, the facts that imply evolution has to happen.

Evolution is defined as "The change with time of gene frequencies in a population". Sweet and simple.

This change of gene frequencies is observable and happens all the time, so it is fact. Implication: Evolution is a fact.

It is known that genes are the ultimate factor that determine the morphology and functions of organisms. It is a proven fact.

It is a fact that mutations (both genetic an epigenetic) happen and are some of the causes of variations among individuals in a population.

They are observed facts that the number of chromosomes in a specie can vary by duplication of one, many or all or reduced by fusion or inactivation. It is also an observed fact that genes can migrate from one species to another through the work of viruses and that whole and partial virus genomes can attach themselves to the DNA of another species.

With these facts in mind, continuous change of the genome of individuals in populations is unavoidable and endless. It means that there are no limits to the changes that a genome can get through and that explain why the potential is there for a species to change until it becomes another species.

Without a biological mechanism to stop genetic changes (it means to make DNA copying 100% effective, and viruses to add they genes) at a certain point, the change of one species into another, given natural selection, (which is also a proven fact) is simply unavoidable. If you want to debunk evolution you have to provide a biological mechanism that will stop genetic variation once it has reached a certain point so as to stop a species to keep changing. As nobody have ever been able to provide that mechanism, evolution (micro and macroevolution are the same thing) stand as the unavoidable result of all these well- known facts.

Please read some serious material on evolution so you do not post nonsense.

Brad Jones's picture


Here’s the link about the prophecies

Sushisnake's picture
And here's a link for you,

And here's a link for you, Brad. Hopefully it will disabuse you of the notion that atheists don't believe in god because they don't wanna. You clearly have no idea the journey many of us have been on to arrive at atheism:

Julia Sweeney- Letting Go of God

Sheldon's picture
Here's a link to talkorigins.

Here's a link to talkorigins.


Here's where that site cites the evidences for common decent...


Grinseed's picture
@ Brad

@ Brad

Lets be honest, there are no prophecies in the old testament for Jesus.
The eight prophecies presented on the site you suggested, are all part of the old testament, itself a central part of the Hebrew faith and culture. Are you suggesting that none of the writers of the gospels had ever read any of the Psalms, Jeremaih, Zechariah or Malachi? Never once heard them read out in a temple?
It is exactly what the site suggests:

"The eight prophecies we’ve reviewed about the Messiah were written by men from different times and places between about 500 and 1,000 years before Jesus was born. Thus there was no opportunity for collusion among them."

It only needed one of the three synoptic gospel authors to read and know the old testament, lift the most appropriate "prophecies" to give authority to his particular tale about the earthly Jesus and the other two copy him (hint: thats why they are called synoptic gospels). And I would add not one of the "prophecies" mention the "Messiah", to whom the site attributes all eight references without good reason.

There are many many sites like this one, boasting 44, 108, etc prophecies from the old testament referenced in the gospels.
I have studied some of them and found no solid proof of prophecy, just a lot of wishful enforced interpretation of vague wordings.

And there a number of prophecies suggested in the gospels "as foretold in scripture" that have no reference at all in the old testament, obvious references to writings that were not canonical, but were handy for more of that air of authority, perhaps. Surely if the gospel writers knew of ancient scriptures that did not survive history, surely they would have known about the stories and poems of the OT or the Torah from which the OT is derived?

What odds? About even money I'd suggest.

* edited to compensate for my fat fingers

Brad Jones's picture
I’ll read it

I’ll read it
I’m sorry if I offended you

Sushisnake's picture
Not offended, Brad- just

Not offended, Brad- just frustrated, mate. Atheism's not the easiest conclusion to reach: nobody in their right mind chooses to be numbered one of a hated, distrusted minority. We're still rated on a par with rapists for trustworthiness in the US.

Sheldon's picture
Jesus, atheism isn't that big

Jesus, atheism isn't that big a deal in the UK, it's over 50% of the population. I'm not sure I could cope with 94% of the country being god botherers, the hatred I'd probably laugh off, but the condescending pious self righteous bilge would really start to boil my piss pretty quickly.

Brad Jones's picture
Roman historians documented

Roman historians documented his Crucifixion

Sushisnake's picture
Tacitus was around 200 years

Tacitus was around 200 years after the event. It is reasonable to believe his mention of Christ came straight from the mouths of early Christians. And nowhere does Tacitus say anything about the Resurrection- or anything about the miracles that happened around the time of the Crucifixion or before it. Rather glaring omissions, wouldn’t you say?

Sheldon's picture
Wrong again, he wrote about

Wrong again, he wrote about anecdotal claims decades after the fact.

Not that it matters, as the Romans crucified a lot of people, this would hardly evidence anything supernatural even if it were true, but it isn't.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Brad

@ Brad
Rubbish. Go see the thread I started just for people like you. "Food for Debate-History " Tacitus documented nothing about a crucifixion, he did not mention crucifixion., He reported, some 30 - 40 years after the events , (note REPORTED) the beliefs of a group of Jews living in Rome at the time of the Great fire in 60CE. He also reported the average Romans revulsion at this groups ritual practises.

If you are going to quote something please make sure you are reporting what you have actually read, not what some dumb ass pastor has made up to fool you.

Sapporo's picture

You still haven't provided any evidence of your alleged empirical observations of "god as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning."

As you have not provided a valid hypothesis for "god as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.", no argument is needed to disprove your conjecture.

Marius Dejess's picture
Dear Sheldon, I like to have

Dear Sheldon, I like to have you get relevant, tell me if you have at all any information on any idea at all as to what is or are God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc.

According to the first canon of rational thinking, thinkers must have some information of the thing whatever they know or claim to know to exist or to not exist, you know that don't you?

As you are into the negative belief that there are no God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., be rational and inform readers what information you have of any just even one of them all God, gods, etc., is that okay with you?

Otherwise we will not know what you are denying to exist; and worse for you, you yourself don't know either.

That is pretty irrational.

Sapporo's picture
As has been explained to you,

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 are born atheists. It is for you as a god-believer to provide evidence of god, not for those who have no belief in god to provide evidence of their lack of belief.

It took you several days to even give a definition of "god", but you were quick to show that you have an erroneous understanding of what atheism is.

You have the negative belief that existence is finite, and believe that god exists because something can come from nothing. You have no proof of either claim. To believe them is pretty irrational.

Sheldon's picture
"Dear Sheldon, I like to have

"Dear Sheldon, I like to have you get relevant, tell me if you have at all any information on any idea at all as to what is or are God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc."

Same as every other time I've answered you on this. They're fictions created by humans, for which no one can demonstrate any objective evidence.

"According to the first canon of rational thinking, thinkers must have some information of the thing whatever they know or claim to know to exist or to not exist, you know that don't you?

Yes, and as I've explained to you knowledge is not the same as belief. So anything claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That is an epistemological razor, did you not know this?

So what objective evidence can you demonstrate that any deity or deities are real?

"As you are into the negative belief that there are no God, gods, "

Nope, no matter how many times you dishonestly misrepresent it atheism is not a belief.

"Otherwise we will not know what you are denying to exist; and worse for you, you yourself don't know either."

I'm not denying anything, I don't believe your claim a deity exists, and won't until you define it and then demonstrate objective evidence for it.

So what objective evidence have you that any deity is real.

Your trolling won't work on me, and I called it on page 1. Feel free to continue but you're wasting your time.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Brad - A mathematician

Brad - A mathematician figured out the chances of someone just fulfilling 8 of those 48 prophecies in a lifetime...

That is bullshit. But what scares me even more: it should be totally obvious to anyone that it is bullshit.

famousamos's picture
does it matter if it is

does it matter if it is specific claims, like do atheists have to prove heaven is real, and god gave moses the ten commandments and such and such. those kind of claims the christian should have the burden of proof. Also if there is an afterlife that is so much better than this one and where we can have a much closer relationship with god,why are we here on earth in the first place? seems kind of odd that we are further away from god on a worse world.

Randy the Atheist's picture
Gods are man-made ideas that

Gods are man-made ideas that were invented extremely late in human history - first appearing in the Neolithic around 11,000 years ago and gradually spread from a tiny corner of the world that lay somewhere between the ancient cities of Ur and Nineveh.

Prior to the invention of gods, people long believed in various flavors of shamanism where a priest or "medicine man" would awaken sleeping spirits and call upon them to do good or evil deeds. Shamanism itself was preceded by an even older belief system called animism where every object including rocks and rivers were thought to contain a spiritual force.

The transformation from earth-bound spirits to sky gods followed the invention of agriculture. Agriculture required the precise charting of the sun and the stars in order to track the seasons. Large stone monuments appeared and curious points of light were discovered that crossed the constellations. These lights which are now known as planets became embodied in mystery and eventually into the realm of the divine.

Celestial gods were gradually replaced with supernatural personified beings after the Egytians and Greeks began immortalizing their kings, pharoahs and famous hero warriors. The idea of humans born as gods ultimately sparked the belief that ordinary men living on the fringes of society could also be gods as well - one individual in particular that continues to be celebrated to this day.

The progression of our religious beliefs demonstrate that gods are only provisional ideas - human ingenuities that have come and gone throughout our history - manufactured from previous concepts that faded from popularity as newer and bolder ideas emerged.

Marius Dejess's picture
Dear atheists, you are always

Dear atheists, you are always into evasions, like for the present and already many times, you keep away from at least giving your information on what is even just one of God, gods, goddesses, etc. you deny to exist.

Don't be infantile, asking me which one of them God, gods, etc.

You know so many: so choose any one, and give it to me when you write again in this thread.

Otherwise no one with rational thinking can connect with you at all.

Okay, as you fear to commit yourselves to any positive affirmation of any statement from your part, and that is because of your woeful fear of truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, I will now just request you read some catechism of Christianity on God, what and who is God.

And stop already, cease and desist with your evasion by telling readers that atheists do not really deny God existing, they are just merely only simply lacking belief in any God, gods, goddesses, etc.

That is like telling readers that you are just comatose in regard to the issue God exists or not.

Do this experiment, when you finally come to conscious existence, ask a Japanese kid who happens to know English, and learn from him what he knows for some information of God among English speaking peoples, when they use the word God in their print press and in online writing, and of course in radio and in television media.

mykcob4's picture

The burden of proof is YOURS NOT OURS.
NO ATHEIST FEARS THE TRUTH. Atheists live the truth. It is you that lives a fairytale!
And you ASSUME that atheists don't know anything about the christian god. Most christians know more about YOUR fucking god than YOU do!
As for your proposed experiment. I have not read a more inane request in my life. This is an example of YOU fucking evading the issue. We don't need some random Asian kid for anything. Either you can produce your god or not and you can't so you are just flinging bullshit to hide that GLARING FACT.

Armando Perez's picture


YOU ARE ASKING FOR THE DEFINITION OF GOD FROM ATHEISTS. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF GOD/ GODS (taken straight from Sheldon and that you refuse to acknowledge)

... Gods are "...fictions created by humans, for which no one can demonstrate any objective evidence."

There you have your definition. Now, can you prove it is wrong?

Stop evading the answer. You have been given what you asked for.

Randy the Atheist's picture
So I just asked a Japanese

So I just asked a Japanese kid who knew how to speak English (most of them here in NYC know English) and he said "gods are fairytales". I guess I have to go find another Japanese kid. He says Atheism is quite high there as many Japanese do not believe in gods but instead, believe in spirits called kami.

Try this experiment: What would you believe in if you were born in Japan...

....circa 500BC.....

LostLocke's picture
The moment you mention

The moment you mention Christian catechisms you aren't talking about "God", you are talking about a specific deity. That particular deity is Jehovah. Is that the god you are talking about?
And secondly, the Bible is only book that is "inspired/written" by "god" so that is the only book that matters. And based on the Bible we tend to not believe that that particular deity, Jehovah, exists.

Sheldon's picture
It's also axiomatic that the

It's also axiomatic that the bible cannot rationally be used as evidence for it's claims. So unless he can demonstrate some corroborating objective evidence for any of it, then it's no more compelling evidence for a deity than Harry Potter books are for wizardry and wizards.

Sheldon's picture
Atheism is not a denial, and

Atheism is not a denial, and it is axiomatically not a belief, nor is it an affirmation of any claim, it is simply the lack of a single belief. I don't think you're in any position to lecture anyone on evasion, but I'll let others decide if you have even once answered a single question after ten pages of your repetitious mendacious bilge.

I don't need a concept for your deity anymore than you have one for Zeus or Apollo, it's like asking someone their opinion on unicorn husbandry. If you think that is rational then you clearly don't understand logic at all. However I still think you're just trolling, my guess is you're a teenage boy, hence the posturing. Or it could be a case of the Dunning Kruger effect.

You claim to be a christian it's in your profile, that is a statement of belief on your part. So once again I ask what objective evidence can you demonstrate that the deity you believe in is real? I look forward to you ignoring this whilst delivering yet another sententious lecture on evasion.

Until you demonstrate some objective evidence for the deity you have picked as real, I don't believe yours is any more real than all the others which you don't believe in. I also don't see you breaking your back to define them all and prove they don't exist, odd that? Not really, it's fairly typical of all theists regardless which deity they believe is real.

mickron88's picture
"that is because of your

"that is because of your woeful fear of truths, facts, logic,"

oh my fucking god....jesus fucking christ....
can you even imagine how bullshit is this???

sick and twisted bruh....you're like deepak chopra

"Dear atheists, you are always into evasions"
this is terrible...(*scratching face)...


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.