Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home/religiou/public_html/wp-content/themes/boldnews/functions/admin-hooks.php on line 160

The Best Argument For Atheism?





Below is what I consider the best argument for lacking belief in any religions or gods. What makes this argument so powerful is that it covers any religion, and best of all, I don’t make the argument, you do. How strong the argument is really depends on how honest you can be with yourself. In fact if you’re a theist, you probably already know this argument, but have various ways to avoid facing it. So if you’re ready, let’s go through the argument as an experiment. The only one you have to answer to is yourself. You’ll know if you’re being honest with yourself or not.



 

Let’s imagine we’re sitting together having a relaxed, honest and open discussion about religion. On the table is a huge stack of white index cards and on each index card is one of thousands of different religions, gods, belief systems, along with arguments for believing in that particular religion or god. Maybe a card has a current religion, or maybe it has a older religion that no one believes in any more, or is largely forgotten. It doesn’t matter – the point is that they’re all here in this great big stack, except for the ones that you believe in – you religion’s not in this stack.

One at a time, I draw up a card and I read you the religion and god and arguments for why you should believe in it and you respond with the reasons you dismiss the arguments and why you don’t believe the religion or god, and I’ll write the responses down.

So we go through every argument ever made for every other religion, their gods, supposed holy books, witnesses, miracles, profits, saviours, prophecies, testimonies, answered prayers, faith claims, affects for good, archeological support; whatever the argument, we go through it. We note all your counter arguments and dismissals on the back on each card.

It won’t take long before we realize that there is a pattern. Your argument for dismissing one religion will likely be similar to a previous answer. We won’t need to write anything down any more – we can just refer back to a previous argument.

Once we get to the bottom of the stack, I take another card out of my pocket. This card has your religion and god on them, and all the arguments that you think support them. We go through that card and they are refuted referring back to arguments you made before, just as we did with all the previous cards.

The fact is that you’re an atheist in regards to thousands of other religions and gods. You already know everything there is to know about dismissing religious arguments. You’re an expert already. You rationally dismiss thousands of other religions or gods just like any atheist does. The difference is you don’t turn that critical side of your mind to your own beliefs.

This realization is all anyone needs to know to recognize their faith doesn’t stand up any more. It’s just question of how honest you can be with yourself.



 

Tags: , , , ,

  • Hawk

    This is pretty much somed up in a quote by Stephen Roberts:

    “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

    • Kareem

      The problem with that quote is that the originator believes that there is a god but perhaps is confused on what atheism is.

      • Brandon

        Kareem, I think you are confused by the quote. Perhaps it is the math.
        1 god -1 god =0 gods

        • Cj

          You are confused my friend, not Kareem. The fact you can make a mathematical equation based on God , tells me you know he exists, but you’d rather subtract him from the equation.

          • Tanya

            Why is it when someone has a disbelief in something others has to try and point out an “assumed obvious”, when they themselves knows no more that the person with a lack of belief. The belief in god is one of faith not one of knowing. With “God” it is believing is seeing not seeing is believing. Key words in this equation “believing”, another words you “know” no more than the atheist does. An atheist has never seen or felt “God” therefore may know a little more. It all depends on your own perspective.

        • Travis

          That quote has a flaw however and so does this article. You can’t believe in a god and be an atheist at the same time because atheism is the rejection that there are any dietys. I know there is a god, just look at the miracles of nature as evidence and any rational man would come to the same conclusion. I am not atheist, obviously. I have faith that christianity is the right religion not because I was raised as a christian or because i picked a religion randomly. I have faith because i researched the evidence and because no other religion has rung true in my heart as christianity has with being selfless. You must not only debate what is the right religion, but whether or not we were created also. I also agree with what papa justice said below. i recommend reading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and Lee Strobel’s The Case for Christ.

          • Mik73

            Travis, were your parents religious? If so, what religion were they?

            If you are similar to 99.99% of other religious people, your ‘chosen’ religion probably bears a striking similarity to that of your parents.

            Funny how that works.

            Of course your heritage could be from some other religion, but that doesn’t mitigate the fact that using ‘nature’ as ‘evidence’ for a deity is simply not rational and based on pure emotionality. You need to believe in a God, so you do. Simple as that.

            Nature is not a miracle in the literal sense. It’s a perfectly logical consequence of many natural processes (physics, chemistry, magnetism, gravity, etc) working together over long periods of time.

            You can fall back on the tired old response, “Well who created those laws, then?”. And I would give you the only truthful answer: We are not smart enough, yet, to positively determine how and why the Universe and it’s laws exist as they do. Human knowledge has limits, but those limits can be pushed back if we follow rational lines of reasoning, experimentation and self-critique.

            Simply ‘knowing’ an answer to a difficult question is not good enough if that answer was formulated from ignorance, superstition, fear and emotionalism. “God did it” may make many of our species sleep easier at night, but it won’t pay the bills so to speak.

            Having an answer to a question is not as important as how that answer was derived. Saying that “God’s benevolent Will shall keep this plane in the sky” isn’t good enough for me, and probably isn’t for you either. If we are going to claim knowledge, it should be grounded on something more concrete then blind faith. The answers to the mysteries of the Universe are no different, they only take more time to ascertain — possibly more time than our species has allotted to it.

          • BeeGood

            @Mik73. Or is it because mankind truly believes that he is superior to God and that he doesn’t need a God in his life; he can get by without Him? If we look at the way mankind is managing this world it would be hard to go along with that.

          • callmesteve

            I believe that Jesus is God’s Son and came to die for our sins, but rose again, defeating death, and now we have the opportunity to accept His sacrifice.

            With that said, I want all u guys to pay attention to this (theists and atheists)

            Lets say I believe there is a God who saves us. Lets say you don’t. Now some day, sooner or later, we’re both gonna kick the bucket. And if I’m wrong and you’re right, now we’re both just gonna rot 6 feet under.

            But lets look at it the other way too (cuz that’s what reasonable people do). What if I’m right and you’re wrong. Now ull spend forever in Hell, and I’ll be in Heaven

            So my question to you: what have u got to lose? Here, I’ll answer it for you. “Freedom”. But lemme follow that up: do u feel free? Because I know that I do

            I used to doubt the existence of God as well. But I was present with this argument once, and I was like, “ok I guess there’s no reeason not to…” So i went with it for a while

            But what shocked me was this – Christianity is not a joke. It’s real. These people are changed. I could tell that some were faking it like me, but there were others that really had something. And lemme tell u what – they seemed a heck of a lot more free than I ever did

            So I started doing what any logical person would do… I tried to be more like them. But the more I got into it, the less I was faking. Soon, I found I wasn’t faking anymore. I love my Jesus. And I know that even when I screw up, he loves me

            So I’m gonna leave you all with this (Christians, atheists, Muslims, agnostics, I don’t care)… What have you got to lose?

            Atheists – I know you’ve seen real Christians before. And if u haven’t, just keep your eyes open, u can’t miss em. You’ll see what you’re missing

            Christians – what have you got to lose, guys? If you believe in the same Jesus I do, then shouldnt you just wanna tell everyone? Get out there. Quit wasting time faking. Just pick a side and found out whether that side is legit or not. These people – on this forum, on ur street, in ur city – they need to know. And you’ve gotta tell em.

          • keziarhh

            What i gotta lose? I will lose my logic and humanism value. Besides, most Christians judge and hate LGBT while I’m not.

            do you even have any scientifical proof of Jesus?

          • DJ

            Just because you want something to be true does not mean it is true. Just because you feel like it makes your life better, does not mean that your beliefs validate the existence of god as a proven fact. Your best argument is that of Pascal’s wager.

            Do you really feel free? The very reason you choose to believe in god proves that your freedom is but a mere illusion:

            You choose to believe in god because you are afraid of the negative consequences that may come upon you because if you don’t choose to believe in her, a fiery hell of eternal suffering will be waiting. This implies that your morals, sense of being a good person, and beliefs about the existence of god only stems from your fear of punishment.

            That, my fellow human being, is a truly selfish, egotistical way to perceive our lives, and it is utterly disgusting that you try to persuade others to follow your lead, with only a piece of literature composed of mountains of contradicting values at your disposal.

          • keziarhh

            Do you have any proof that Jesus came back from the death?

          • Lars

            Your beliefs are based on what you have read online, nothing else. How is it stupid to believe something from a book, and not stupid to believe something on the internet? They are both stupid. Why don’t you and your atheist mastermind explain conciousness and reality to us all?

          • keziarhh

            you still don’t answer my question, lol. Yes, all holy books are ‘smart’ and have all the right answers. Which means we can’t eat pork and steak because they are forbidden a holy book which has the same usage with bible.

            No, my belief is based on logic and I’m not an atheist you moron, LOL

  • Papa Justice

    This argument seems to assert that valid truth is dependent on the one’s ability to defend it, which, from a purely objective and logical perspective, is simply false. The arguments makes the assumption that no religion is true and that no religion has a logical or dependable basis for belief. Let’s say that a class of college students are given a complex mathematical formula to solve on the board. No one is able to solve it or give a rational answer. Does this mean that the problem they have been given is a faulty one? While it could indeed be a faulty problem to solve, it could also mean that its merely a difficult problem to solve. My point: even if there is no valid religion, this argument is illogical.

  • john

    If “The difference is you don’t turn that critical side of your mind to your own beliefs.” then it means for what ever reason you believe what you do is for emotional reasons.
    These reasons regardless of their validity must have some value to its advocate. One might argue that it is just a tool to elicit feelings of comfort, generosity, etc., that it is fantasy is unimportant somewhat like believing in Santa Claus as a child. One would not ask if a hammer is true; it just a hammer.
    Unfortunately, there are numerous people ready to exploit, manipulate, etc. for their hyper selfish or ignorant reasons any mythology that some fun, social order and comfort with could be had with it. Therefore, sadly, it is ultimately unwise even with a wink, wink, nod, nod to have a Santa Claus for adults.

    • Gabe

      All you assholes just don’t wanna believe in a god because you wanna be right and not conform to something that isn’t original as a new fucking idea. pick something that makes you happy and live unbiasedly and you do a hell of a lot more for yourself and society if you do. your attitudes are suicidal based on the fact you argue something that isn’t proven not that it can’t so fuck off for hating on someone that believes it rightfully. it’s called free will, actually be original douche bags

      • Tanya

        Gabe wow real inventive. Have you ever considered that if “God” is giving you “free will” if you believe that, then who are you to judge the “assholes” who chose to do so. Without regard as to whether their is really a god or not. Just as one can not prove the non existence another can not prove the existence.

  • John

    Dismissing all other religions would be done because of a lack of knowledge. There are thousands of “other” religions for several reasons :
    – Lack of knowledge : Only one civilization (jewish) recieved the oracles of God and so could truely understand his will at the time. God clearly gave and gives attention to all others worshiping the divinity (Malachi 1.11).
    -Self satisfying : men make religions to please themself (sex, money, fame, power), causing alot of damage.
    -Prophet conflict : Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc, clearly come from the same religious book, its all about deciding which is the last true prophete.

    But all religions have coherence in that they say man is worth living, a moral is needed, goals are to be achieved on earth.

    Which brings us to the biggest incoherence of atheism : men have no spirits, they are just flesh, life is just chemical reaction. Which makes them as worthless as rocks, dust, and dirt. So any argument for an atheist to respect another man is useless, since another man is like dirt in his logic, making murder not a bigger deal then breathing. And that makes atheism worst then Nazism, because they would at least value some type of men and considere some murders like immoral and forbidden.

    The saddest part is if an atheist is really convinced he is worth dirt, I believe not. I would way rather that guy to believe any religion, no matter how false it can get, no matter how inslaved it could get him, his new starting point would be “My life is worth beeing lived”. I should quote Blaise Pascal:

    “Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists.”

    • Brandon

      I think the fact that we understand our place in the universe makes us value life even more than a theist ever could. You believe, and will do good because you are told if you don’t you will go to hell, an Atheist does good because he understands that his civic duty is to help others, and not condemn them because they are of a different race, sexual orientation or otherwise. Hitler was a catholic who believed that Jews were the reason for Germany’s problems, and because the Jews didn’t even believe in Jesus’ existence. I think I as an Atheist care more about others than you would ever allow yourself, I don’t think the fact that we are chemical reactions we are worthless, it makes me embrace the natural side of life, and appreciate my place in the universe. In worth a rock could never be compared to a human being, I think a simple bacteria is worth more than the moon because the chemical reactions that required it’s existence go way further that that of the moon. Your way of seeing things logically, and connecting things like Atheism (a religious view) and Nazism (a political view) shows how little you understand the world.

      • Dudley

        Thank you Brandon.
        That was well put.

      • Joel

        Just one question Brandon. What is your place in the universe??

    • Phil.

      First, I want to tell you why I’m replying to this. I am a lover of constructive, objective (but not necessarily unemotional), and reasonable knowledge. I enjoy seeing others discover almost as much as I enjoy discovering. So, this response is not to prove you wrong, necessarily, but to suggest a flaw or an un-parallel idea to contemplate. Maybe you change your mind, maybe you don’t. It’s okay with me, either way.
      I would like to address each of your points.
      You stated that a kind of lack of knowledge stems from the ignorance of oracles. I would counter this with the existence of other oracles (those of the Greeks come to mind). To the pagan Greeks, their oracles were the only tellers of truth and of true divinity. The essayist highlights this idea. How can you refute Greek or some other oracles without reasonably questioning the authenticity of yours? Keep in mind that truths can be told with lies. This might help the “reason”-ing part of that.
      It is true that those religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and Mormonism) all share some prophets and often disagree on which one is the “last” one. It is also true, carrying the idea I just introduced, that other religions lay outside the range of those prophets, such as Greek, Norse, and Roman religions (sorry to reuse an example, but it readily comes to mind). Hinduism and Buddhism have their own prophets as well. By saying this, I mean to indicate that “it” doesn’t only come down to choosing between the prophets in the Old Testament.
      You then seemed to envision atheism as an agreed upon belief system. The title “atheism” can only universally identify one aspect: the disbelief in divinity. All other characteristics are up for division and dispute.
      I would like to give the viewpoint of one possible atheist. This atheist disbelieves in the existence of any god, for whatever reason. He still believes morals are beneficial and they can be mutually decided upon by a society without the influence of religion. The American Constitution is a good example of one such moral code, even if it is not considered a “moral” code. Morals stem from empathy, a proven behavioral adaptation seen in more than just humans. The “worth” in these morals is the “worth” of the atheist’s own life. If he and his fellow men abide by such a moral system, he is ensured safety to some degree (defined by the specific system) and the protection of his life (or maybe Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness). He may understand that life is quantifiable and qualitative (as you said, a “chemical reaction”) but he also understands that this does not change anything except perhaps his understanding of the world. A good analogy is the sky’s color. Simply because he can calculate why the sky is blue does not make it any more or less blue. Just because he believes emotion is a title given to complex physical reactions in one’s brain does not mean he will cease to feel them. They are still there, driving his desires and ambitions. I this sense, he can show every bit as much respect for his fellow man. Respect is now defined differently for him, but his objectivity does not remove it from his capabilities.
      Whether something is sad or not remains your own opinion, so I will not comment on that.
      I like the quote from Pascal, but I must assert that this person would need to ignore many tendencies of his natural reason to live in accordance to theism. This happens frequently. Take the chance if it makes you happier for, as you said, it is no chance at all. But, if you would rather explore your capacity for natural reason, explore it and don’t let fallacies cloud your vision. Be honest with yourself. I’ll add a quote I like as a foil to Pascal’s:

      “A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”
      -Albert Einstein

    • Tanya

      Did not God kill? Just saying God has shown his wrath throughout the Holy Bible. Lets talk about that for a moment. I live in the United States where Christian ideology is great, most people do not buy into all the religious bs, they are just used to it being not socially excepted. Kinda like marrying more than one wife. Isn’t that in the Bible something God accepted, although it is shunned now. As much as Atheist have a lack of beliefs, Christianity can not make up their mind as to what is right. How can you believe in something that is continually changing but is supposed to be all knowing! “HEY GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME IF YOU AREALL KNOWING”

  • dan

    answer: this is simply the confusion of the esoteric and exoteric domains. It would be similar to arguing evolution is false because hundreds of different scientific groups, both within and between their respective fields, each have different explanations for how it works exactly. Despite these differences, we know of course that there are fixed principles that remain at the centre of each theory and the differences or outright ‘contradictions’ are only on the periphery, so to speak. (See for eg. http://escholarship.usyd.edu.au/journals/index.php/SSR/article/viewFile/275/254)
    Furthermore, Islam has the advantage of answering the question even from an exoteric perspective. In Islam it is held that human messengers have been repetitively sent through history testifying to the reality of the One God. Naturally, different people ‘clothe’ the message according to their own character (eg. think of language). The message is also suscpeitble of an indefinite variety of corruptions due to human nature; thus new messengers continue to be sent to re-centralize the exoteric with the permanant principles.

  • HitchLovesYou

    Yeah, Dawkins echoes that “We’re both atheists, I’m just an atheists for one god further” stuff. And fellow insignificant product of evolution, it stirs those who are oblivious to the fact that, well, there have been 1000s of religions, and there’s is no different.

  • Matthew Michaud

    Sorry, this is so bad it’s hard to respond. I’ve heard this similar argument before listening to Dawkins and Hitchens speak in the past; and in my humble Christian opinion, this makes atheists look bad.
    You could literally apply this same logic to any theoretical scenerio (religious or otherwise) in which there are multiple possibilities; multiple players with a wager; and only one scenerio can be correct.
    Your premise is completely incorrect as well; that all the answers on the cards would be replicated or similar. I would have to try to be coordial in explaining how bad it looks (to anyone who is not a commited athiest) when you try to compare God of the Bible to Thor.
    Mythological gods were attributed to unexplained events that inspired awe or frightened people etc. The Bible never claims that there is a god up in the clouds who throws lightning bolts or makes thunder rumble. Nor does it claim there is a god of the sea who stirs the waves with a big rod or such. Interestingly enough, all of the other religions at the time the Bible was written did cliam this; even the ones with supposed (and completely absurdly cliamed) simalrities.
    The claim of the BIble however is that God is the creator of all of nature, has power over it, and has created a human beings as spearate from the rest of His creation and desires to love and commune with them based on their free will to reciprocate the same. It does not assign a god to given weather or solar entities and events.
    The only real examples where the replicated or similar responses would occur that you claim above would be between 3 religions; not hundreds; and these would include 1) Judaism 2) Christianity 3) Islam. (Buddhism as it were is obviously a self enlightment pursuit and do not believe in God … http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/beliefs.htm and Hinduism is polythiestic not unlike the mythological gods already staed).
    As it is, these three religions spring originally from the Torah/Bible and then are further extended via the New Testement, Koran etc. and that is why there would be similar types of response in the discreditation between them. But if you were to look any of your proverbial cards with a given religion on it besides these 3; the responses to why they are not true would be utterly different.
    So in short, you completely overstate the similarities between these 3 named religions and mythology/native religons/ the book of the dead etc and this is blatently obvious to almost anyone. In fact, you try to compare this, the God of the Bible, to religions and beliefs that the Bible itslef literally spends the first 2/3 trying to discount and discredit.
    Your’e pretty much wrong about everything you’ve stated, but I enjoy the subject and enjoyed reading it.
    Thanks for posting.

    • Ashes

      The birth of man was no more a miracle than the birth of an octopus. We are no more special than any other creature. That is the kind of thinking that got us into this mess to begin with. “We are above all other creatures so nothing can happen to us.” We even throw these types of ideologies onto other people. The bible has anti-semitism. Christianity is ridiculous because you guys are always taking things from the Bible that works to your advantage but when you do not like something it says or something is contradictory, you ignore it. The Bible is no more than a scare tactic and an opiate for the people. Just because millions of people believe in an imaginary friend does not mean he is real.

    • Mik73

      Basically what you are saying is that the sophistication of human religion changes over time. The earlier paganistic gods of river and tree simply became too simplistic when faced with mountain human achievements in linquistics, philosophy, social organization, economies, and so forth.

      The modern religions arose as an inevitable consequence of a need for more complicated, nuanced approaches to social and civil matters.

      As our language, writing and mobility progresssed, so did our ability to communicate with ‘those others’ over that hill and across that sea. You can see the influence of many philosophies, religious practices and mythologies at the heart of every major modern religion, only gussed up with more flowerly prose and codified rituals.

      You are correct in that the specific reasons for dismissing any given religion may change, it doesn’t alter the basic formula:

      Human language + Human imagination + Human Interaction = Every religious (and social) belief, story, song, psalm, practice, action ever devised.

      No actual metaphysical agents are required to give rise to the creation thereof in the human mind. From simple cave drawings written by hairy potmakers to simple stories about Harry Potters, the fanciful and metaphorical expressions of our everyday existence are simply a part of the beauty and wonder of humanity.

  • Kareem

    Many atheists, especially new ones try to dismiss God which is really the crux of their problems. God speaks and deals with them too but they choose to dismiss it. As one practices this over time, you will get the point to where God’s attempt to relate with you are not recognizable anymore. It’s usually the result of an “unanswered” prayer that brings about lack of belief – just human condition. God still seeks these people too.

  • Joseph

    I am Catholic and while I respectfully disagree with the atheistic position taken by the author of this article, he brings up a good point, which is this: we were all given human reason and it is our task to use it as a tool to come to the correct conclusions about religion.

    We believe not out of fear or guilt, but out of love.

    Stemming from that, we may disagree intellectually with a person’s belief system, but we can never pass judgement on them unless they are breaking Natural Law (a Catholic concept) which means they are abusing people, killing people, or otherwise causing harm to other people.

    Jesus even says something to this effect- that we will be judged by the stick with which we measure OTHERS.

    So the correct answer to this index card riddle is not to argue that the evidence for your religion (I believe it’s Catholicism)

    is vastly different from evidence for other religions
    (although I do believe that to be the case historically in the case of the Catholic Church).

    It’s to refrain from shooting down the OTHER religions in an emotional way, but instead be always on a search for truth and keep your mind open for new arguments, new ways of looking at things, new information.

    And if the new information does not stand up to your scrutiny (which for me is the case for atheism, agnosticism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.). Then don’t accept it. But don’t judge OTHERS for not being smart enough to figure it out themselves.

    • brad

      “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all these other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

    • Mik73

      Why are you a Catholic? Were you raised that way? Have you ever wondered what religion you would be if your parents were Muslim?

      You say you believe not out of fear, but out of love. I think you believe because human children have a remarkable propensity to follow their parents lead in many things. You were raised a particular way, and you show natural human loyalty to your parents, your fellow Catholics and so forth.

      None of this has anything to do with Gods, Godesses, Heavens or what have you, and everything to do with human psychology. People make up such fanciful reasons for why they ‘believe’ in one thing or another, when the truth is so much more mundane, honest, and frankly, obvious.

      I’m an atheist because no religion ever created can offer any proof whatsoever of the fantastical creatures, places, events and behaviors they describe. I walk in a bookstore and I see clear as day the width and breadth of human imagination. The why and how religions are created and propogated is thus as trivial as it is banal: Human brains acting with, on or in reaction to other human brains. No more, no less.

      Forget something so limited and singular as a bible. History itself is rife with examples of religious and policial indoctrination, intimidation, brutality, the laws of coercion, propoganda, “believe in this or else”, etc etc. That offers a much more honest account of how and why populations believe in what they believe.

  • Ashes

    So it is absurd to have a god in the sky throwing thunderbolts and a god of the sea commanding waves but it is NOT absurd to have a god impregnate a virgin or a man to rise from the dead? Oh, okay.

  • Jean Paul Datuin

    I’ve been a long theist but all I can say is you have a good point that definitely every theist cannot turn down. I’m still open to all informations as long as it leads to the truth. Thanks for the article!

  • Marius de Jess

    I see the author of this argument the best one from atheists is into dodging and quibbling.

    First, you should define each god, or at least the God that Christian theists believe to exist.

    Okay, without further ado, do you know all the gods that you deny including the God of Christian theists?

    Unless you do this first you are into conflating all gods as essentially the same all gods you deny to exist, including the God of Christian theists.

    Now, if you say that there are simply so many gods that you deny all of them, it is physically impossible for you to describe every one of them, then just give us the information of what is the God of Christian theists, and we will go from there to discuss why you don’t have any argument against this God existing, unless you don’t think on experience and reason from there, but you are into dodging and quibbling.

    So, dear atheist, will you take the challenge to give readers here the information you have of the God of the Christians, what is His role in the universe the one which is studied by scientists and where we all humans are residing in?

    Let me see how you react to my challenge, without any dodging and quibbling.

    If you don’t know or don’t have any information of the God of Christian theists, then you should get this information by doing research in Christian sources, not in your own fellow atheists’ writings, because they are all into dodging and quibbling, like you are in this your best argument against God the one of Christian theists.

    Please email me if you care to discuss with me, otherwise you can continue to engage in dodging and in quibbling.

    Marius de Jess
    mdejess@gmail.com

  • J.R. Lagoni

    Below is just one example of a religion based on falsities, that anyone can understand IF THEY STUDY WELL ENOUGH. (This means studying objectively and fully, and studying what those who disagree with you reason to be so):

    ************************************************************************************************

    Here are 2 distinct lines of evidence that show that Jesus did not even exist as a person on earth. He was madeup as a man at a later date. In earliest Christianity, he was more like the “Holy Ghost” of today – a spirit but not a person on earth at anytime. One early Christian sect made him a historical person, they became very evangelical and powerful, and took over all of Christianity.

    1. There were many historians, and there are still many historical records, from about 2000 years ago. If you study that period’s primary sources (written at that time), it becomes obvious that Jesus did not exist. Yet read the book of Mark, it portrays Jesus as definitively famous – and yet the records don’t show it to be so! Some church officials have rewritten small portions of historical documents to try to include some reference to a historical Jesus, but even these are few and obvious. IF YOU STUDY THE PERIOD WELL – it is just simply obvious that the book of Mark cannot be true in its portrayal of Jesus as a famous person within his region. The historians write of many other people, including many oracles, but the Jesus of Mark is simply not there.

    2. There are MANY previous sun-god-saviors, that the Jesus story was made to resemble closely so people of that time would much more likely adopt it. MANY stories exist of a god who: was crucified in springtime, rose from the dead after 3 days, walked on water, had 12 disciples, visited by 3 magi at birth, birthday on Dec. 25 (most people now know of this one), studied with the elders at precocious age, etc. Buddha, Horus of Egypt, Mithra of Persia and Rome, Hercules, Dionysus of Greece, Attis – each have many of these similar attributes in their “life-stories” – WAY TOO MANY for coincidence. Once again though, one must study very well and objectively – but then it becomes obvious: Jesus was madeup as a historical person by the early Christian church. Constantine institutionalized it, fanaticals ruled for a few centuries as Rome was losing its grip on its territories

    The problem is so often, people will not EVEN CONSIDER that THEIR religion should be studied well by themselves. They have convinced themselves of its truth, and they block their own best intellectual efforts in that very important part of their lives.

  • Marius de Jess

    Lagoni, you say in your first words: “Here are 2 distinct lines of evidence that show that Jesus did not even exist as a person on earth.”

    You see, you go right straight on to Jesus, that is a wrong, useless, empty, irrelevant approach.

    First, argue that God does not exist as the creator and operator of the universe, because if God is not the creator and operator of the universe, no amount of Jesus and Bible is going to mean anything to any reasoning human being.

    You are dodging already from the start in dwelling on Jesus.

    Before anything else, atheists must not dodge and quibble, first go for the jugular, prove that there is no God creator and operator of the universe.

    And don’t dodge and quibble talking about because there is evil in the world there is no good God?

    Why bother with an evil God or a good God, first prove no God creator and operator of the universe exists.

    A good God does not mean anything whatsoever as to deserve humans’ study or debate, if He is not first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe.

    Now, you atheists will dodge again, with bringing in the fiction that there are many universes, etc., etc., etc.

    Just keep to the universe the one we are residing in and scientists tell us has a beginning some 13.7 billion years ago.

    Atheists do not have any genuine arguments against God as the creator and operator of the universe, all their talks against God are dodges, quibbles, parodies, flippancies, and irrelevancies, and that is all they can do, engage in empty words — precisely because they don’t — since they cannot — have any genuine arguments against God as the creator and operator of the universe.

    Marius de Jess

    • stunner

      One problem with your argument is that you can make it about any supernatural or otherwise totally unproven phenomenon.

      For instance, and I’m sorry to so crudely paraphrase your point: “So you say that unicorns do not exists? Do you even know what a unicorn is? Please tell us what you think a unicorn is, without dodging or quibbling. Aha, so you see? Your idea of a unicorn is incomplete. Clearly you have not done sufficient research on unicorns. That you would refuse to believe in unicorns without studying them, shows how closed minded you are.”

      Dude, it’s bullshit. YOU believe in something. Everyone defines their god differently. Saying there is one correct way to define a supernatural creator god is so arrogant. Tell us what you believe, and then show us the proof. Or else, yeah, your god goes in the pile with the 10,000 other gods I’ve never seen any proof of.

      And, the majesty of nature is majestic enough. That we have a naturalistic description of how it all came about is beautiful. Adding god where you come to the limits of your understanding of that majesty is a fallacy.

  • Marius de Jess

    I ask atheists:

    Since you say that you don’t accept God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc.

    Suppose you just choose the best God Who is the creator of everything with a beginning, instead of bringing in so many characters.

    If you don’t accept the concept of God as the creator of everything with a beginning, then tell us what God you do not believe in, for it is irrational and in effect crazy to not believe in something you don’t have any concept of.

    Now, if you accept any concept of God but less than the concept that God is the creator of everything with a beginning, then you are too naive, because anything that is less than the creator of everything with a beginning is not to be taken seriously: only that God Who is the creator of everything with a beginning is the God to be taken seriously by critical intelligent mankind.

    If you have any objections against such a concept of God, namely, the creator of everything with a beginning, then bring them forth and I will discuss with you why the concept of a being who is the creator of everything with a beginning is absolutely reasonable and valid, for it is the roadmap by which we will go forth to seek for Him in the universe.

    The way I see arguments of atheists against God, they are all nothing but dodging from the concept of God as the creator of everything with a beginning.

    Marius de Jess

  • Marius de Jess

    Well, addressing the author of the best argument [ his own ] for atheism, you are just into refuting all religions including the Christian faith.

    You want Christians to reject their faith because according to you they reject all other faiths, so to be consistent they must also reject their own.

    But, do you know that for Christians it is not religion that is important to them, but the existence of God.

    We Christians do not deny the existence of God in other religions if that God is the creator of heaven and earth and everything with a beginning.

    What we care to do with peoples in other religions is to bring them to Jesus Christ, in addition to what they already accept for their God, namely, that He is the creator of heaven and earth and everything with a beginning.

    You have confused religion with the existence of God.

    See, that is your confusion, and I hope you see it, God is what Christians are all about, not their religion as one among many.

    What you should do is to bring forth your best argument against God in His role as the creator of heaven and earth and everything with a beginning.

    Are you the owner of this blog or whatever, in which case I commend you for not deleting my first post here, and now this present one I hope you will not delete it either.

    Marius de Jess

    • Hoss

      @Marius de Jess

      The author did not claim this was the best argument for atheism, but instead poses a question that it may be the “best” argument for atheism to change the mind of a theist.

      The evidence for the nonexistence of god is itself nonexistent, as I believe you are aware. Although if I were to bet, you are unaware how difficult it is to prove the nonexistence of anything. Where is the proof that bigfoot or the lochness monster is not real? At most what could be said is there is no empirical evidence that either exist, and there is a mountain of evidence that makes their existence unlikely. I believe in neither. But to be intellectually honest, I must acknowledge my belief of their nonexistence is tentative at best, and I must follow the evidence where it leads, regardless of prior belief.

      The reasons I just mentioned about why I do not believe in bigfoot or nessy are why I do not believe in a god. At most you can say that I deny empirical evidence of gods existence(which I can prove is not the case), but my conclusions are justifiable as my reasoning is sound.

      I should also remind you that faith is highly erroneous as well as a non-sequitor. Faith is nothing more than unjustified speculation. Believing faith to be something other than what it is, will reenforce the beliefs “justified” through faith regardless of the truth.

      I will respond to any proofs or empirical evidence you might have for the existence of a god. You should know, I have read arguments from a vast multitude of theist apologist, and I have found flaws in all their logic and evidence. I am not a denialist, but I will follow the evidence wherever it might lead.

    • Jason

      If you sat down just the Summa Theologica, not even the man who wrote it, this argument would not work. No where in it does it refute other religions, but it never refutes itself.

      Sorry that I have yet to find that atheists have even an argument at all that can’t be ripped apart with a couple of statements.

      Sure, arguably neither of us have scientific proof, but we have hints while you have nothing.

  • mikeburke

    If you want to use “nature” and its magnificence as proof of god, are you speaking about the Christian or modern god that is omnipotent, all knowing and supposedly loving? Or, a god that created the beginning and let it roll (and if god did this….why?) An honest person examining empirical evidence in nature would likely recede to AT LEAST an agnostic perspective (probably the only valid way to approach the subject in the first place). If the magnificence of nature is proof of God, then the brutality of nature (off the top of my head; viruses, spina bifida, birth defects, down syndrome, on and on and on) should also be proof, or at least a GIAGANTIC flashing red stop-belief light against the idea of a merciful, loving creator. If one travels the world, escaping the cocoon of western lifestyle, much of the world speaks AGAINST a loving god, or creator god. Forget about the fact that there are no real “proofs” that god did this. Certainly a “god” can make it abundantly clear who he/she/it is and EXACTLY what he/she/it expects or desires from the creation. Most “true religions” have books written with much heresay, no eye witnesses, no physical evidence, and more than anything else……CONTRADICTIONS run through all these books! The list goes on and on. “It’s in the bible” is not a scientific answer to the question of god, no god. “the universe is simply to complex to have been created randomly” is also not valid evidence for god but mere sentimentality and wishful thinking for thumb suckers. The books mentioned to “prove” god (Mere Christianity, etc) do not scientifically prove anything. There is not a drop of science, or even responsible modern logic or critical thinking in those arguments. god could clear this up at ANY time obviously, but seems to be preoccupied with other things (perhaps monitoring “sin” and taking notes throughout the universe!). Ridiculous.

    • Jonathon Brownback

      Evil as evidence against a god won’t work, because you’re assuming a priori that there is a such a thing as an objective moral law (standard) against which Nature as it currently stands violates, otherwise why bring up that complaint? If it’s not breaking any objective standards, then what’s wrong with Nature? At that point your are then only saying that it “offends” you, personally….but doesn’t objectively violate anything.

      So, do you *really* want to admit to there being an objective moral standard? (that Nature, “red in tooth and claw”, violates?)

      Also, how so is ordered complexity not a valid argument? Order and complexity generally don’t just come into being from disorder and chaos, randomly, like Atheists claim the Universe did. Can you give me one single solitary example of ordered complexity arising (randomly, by chance, no less) from disordered chaos. ONE example, and then it starts becoming scientific, and not a grown-up fairy tale. If it’s not based on observable FACT, it’s not scientific, period. The “fact” that the Universe (and everything in it) arose by random chance from nothing (not even nothing, less than nothing…) is not fact, it’s a priori Assumption. It’s a Presupposition. We all have them, (after all, in order to even have a debate, you have to start off assuming the validity of Logic, along with a bunch of other things, like the linearity of time, laws of nature, the fact that you actually exist and are not just a brain in a jar somewhere, etc etc) and I don’t particularly blame atheists for having them, but I wish they would stop stating them as Fact when they’re anything but.

  • Brendan Liam

    This is a prime example of why atheists should quit using the word “religion” so carelessly, it also brings their arguments down to a christian level-requiring a framework of unspoken and untrue assumptions.

    For starters, atheism just means “Lack of faith in gods”.

    Nothing more, nothing less. That said, many religions are atheist in nature. Buddhism for example. So how is it that all these anti-theism arguments think they could apply to religion? Only by dishonesty. Further, even Abrahamic religions alone usually fail some generalization by an atheist. Judaism has very little in common with Christiantiy for example, the latter claims the same monotheist god, even though it’s been compartmentalized. Much less can they make a statement about religion that would pass a minority of them as accurate.

    Christianity, is christianity. Religion is not christianity, it is religion. So if you mean christianity and your argument only considers christianity, then say “christianity” not “religion”. Or someone like me may point out how similar atheists are to christians, especially christian atheists…. they really just drop jesus and keep the rest.

  • jason

    Ok I just want to state that I do not believe in God and have a good reasons. You see as an Atheists I believe in things that are provable like gravity and the atom and will accept any thing that has proof in its existence. Now can you prove to me that God exists if so I will gladly convert. But you see I don’t have to prove to you anything because I I only believe things that have proof in them. It is called the burden of proof you have to prove to me there is a God by I don’t know askind him to cure cancer. Now if your God appears before me an cures cancer then I will gladly believe in him. A better example will be if you go buy a car. The car dealer telles you he has this awesome car that goes fast can fly and can go back in time. Now you think that is cool right but are you just going to take his word for it and buy the car. Of course not because it sounds to good to be true. So you ask for proof the car can do this. Now the dealer gets insulted and tells you that it work you just have to believe it will work. Are you going to buy the car now. I would not. Now the dealer gets everyone in the car dealership to tell you that it definetly works and to just buy it. Are you going to. I don’t know about you but it still sounds to good to be true. Now what if the dealer let you drive the car let you fly it in the air and you to go back in time and see dinosaurs. Convinced no; I would be. You see that is the burden of proof in action. You proove to me he exist not through one time miracles or the already explanable natural world and I will jump right on your bus. You see as an atheists everything I’m defending is has been prooven to be true like gravity or the shape of the earth or has strong evidence supporting it like evolution( for thous how do not believe in evolution and use its a theroy to support yourself I would like to remind you that a theroy is a collection of facts and experiments that have not been prooven wrong yet) so I don’t have to proove anything to you becaus everything I believe is true and even you have to say that. Now you on the other hand have to proove to me that your God exists and you have to proove he is omnipotent. This is hard because you see your faith based which basically means you have no proof. I don’t have to proove God does not exist because there is no proof you have to proove to me he does with the absence of proof.

    • Cody Douds

      I would refer you to any of William Lane Craig’s work. Predominately his work with the Ontological Argument. Glad to see that there is an open-minded Atheist out there. The Ontological, Cosmological, Moral, Transcendental, and the Teleological Arguments are meant to prove there is a God. They do not prove whose God (Islam or Christian for example). In your search for real truth, given you are still search, which is one of the most noble journeys one can find themselves in, I urge you to study rather heavily in to these topics. Realize that most of the atheist arguments fail due to an undermining of God’s character. (ex. Can God make a rock too heavy for him to lift?) Now, this seems coherent, but with an understanding of who God is, not even who God is but who He must be, will lead one to a rational conclusion. By definition God exist outside of space and time. To pick a rock up one needs time and space. Time, for the rock to move from A to B, and of course space for there to be a rock in the first place. Therefore this argument is invalid because it undermines who God MUST be and it equivocates two things that have absolutely no relation. If somebody were to state this argument against me I would reply, “What sound does the color orange make?” Two totally different things. They have no relation.
      Understand God’s character that is the most important thing. I would love to get your email so that I may reference you to different Authors or sources. You seem like a reasonable Atheist, which I cannot tell you how much I admire, and realizing that there is a being which transcends all we know is a very humbling experience. You may find yourself in a whole new world. I would be happy to email you back and forth. cvdouds@gmail.com

    • Jonathon Brownback

      We all have basic philosophical presuppositions about the world that we have to justify, whether we are atheist, theist, or what have you.

      True, an atheist doesn’t have to justify that a god exists, but they do have a number of other problems. Namely: Logic, Moral Law, the Validity of Thought, (that’s a name I just came up with [ :D :P ] for an old argument) and the existence of the Universe. Refer to my post below for the last one.

      I’ll post later about the others, when I have time.

  • Vince

    Given that the Universe exists
    Given that I did not always exist
    Given that I exist now
    Therefore there is a creator

    Given that I have consciousness
    Given that I have free will
    Therefore I can choose to search for my creator

    Given that love exists
    I believe that the creator is loving and I believe that I have been successful in my search.

    As for the argument for Atheism – Any religion that believes in a loving creator is compatible with my faith. I am only familiar with a few religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) I chose one but the others are not incompatible with my beliefs.

    I would have difficulty understanding logic not founded on the six givens I propose but I certainly do not expect everyone to come to my conclusions.

  • imrangr1

    Asking for proof of God has always sounds strange to me. I wonder: How can there be a complete proof of an entity of whom by very defintion is unprovable.
    A simple analogy is how can ‘infinite’ be quantified in mathematics because by definition it is unquantifiable.

    • Cody Douds

      That is why some theist hold that the Atheist has the burden of proof. Certainly no sane atheist is willing to go that route unless extremely educated.

      • Jerry

        No, that would make no sense for *any* atheist. It is logically impossible to prove the nonexistence of something. Consequently, the burden remains with the believers. I’ll point out, those atheists who claim there *absolutely is no* god (or higher being, or spaghetti monster, etc.) are in a worse place than theists because they not only can’t prove their claim (with evidence at hand) they can *never* do so.

  • Jonathon Brownback

    This only works if each objection applies equally to the Affirmatives religion.

    Quite an assumption. What if there is good, reasonable evidence for a god, at least. What then? Wouldn’t it then be more reasonable to just assume that there must be some religion out there that has valid reasons?

  • Mike Dalgleish

    The fact there are thousands of beliefs concerning God does not exclude the possibility that only one of those beliefs is true. If there is one God, it would make sense He would provide a way to understand the One Way. If there are multiple ways to God (reference the Coexist bumper sticker), that would breed confusion. God is not a God of confusion, but rational. Your argument fails for the simple reason that it does not include the possibility that One religion might, in fact, be true.

  • MariusDejess

    So, there is no God, the universe is all there is.

    But the universe has a beginning, that is established by science.

    Let me have an exchange of logic with atheists, where does the universe come from.

    You will say that it came forth from nothing.

    That is against logic, for if anything at all has a beginning, and the universe according to science has a beginning, then it has to be from some entity as its source of the beginning of its existence.

    Yes, I have read it many times, you will tell me that we don’t know, meaning you do not want to think logically.

    Anyway, let me see how you react to my inquiry in this comment.

  • Shimbabwe

    With all due respect, this is a terribly misconceived argument. The reason is because it only addresses beliefs, which are not causally associated with reality. No matter how strongly you believe that God does or does not exist has nothing to say about the truth or falsity of the proposition, God exists. This epistemological question has only superficial relevance.

    The same argument could be applied to science. We could simply be wrong about many things that we purport to know. Just as in science, we could apprehend knowledge about God — if He exists — gradually, in the same way that we come to know more about the physical world.

    Just because many people have — or had — beliefs about God or gods, has very little to do with whether a God exists. This is what philosophers call the genetic fallacy. Now, with respect to those other gods, it is impossible that more than one true God exists, by definition.

    Other gods are simply mischaracterizations, distortions, or misrepresentations of the one true. So, there is no need for the theist to be an atheist with respect to those, or even to consider them at all. This argument — or one very similar — is going to be in my top 10 worst arguments for atheism. So far, it is number one.

  • MariusDejess

    Let me ask the author, does the universe have a beginning?

    As you know that scientists tell us the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago, and you as an atheist claims to be scientific, then you must infer from the universe which has a beginning to the fact or scientific conclusion that the universe has a cause outside itself.

    Let me read your reaction to my message.

    Marius de Jess

  • mickar

    “Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it?

    Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] […].

    If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on – so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.”