Are atheistic arguements really smart?

[Papay]

I ve talked with atheists and they use arguements that usually are amusing yet they lack seriousness. For example:

Who designed God?

Can God make a rock so heavy that he couldnt carry it?

Why does God lets evil in this world since he is so powerful?

Didnt God knew that Adam and Eve will eat the fruit in the garden of Eden?

Why an allloving God leaves children die?

And so on....

Their arguements are not philosofical and do not offer a proof that God does not exist.What they do is search the dozens of religious books and find contradictions.And because there are contradictions they jump to the conclusion that God does not exist.They dont want to see that these books were written by men and its obvious that they would have contradictions

When atheists are challenged with more serious arguements like "how do you justify the fact that all civilizations had religions" or "how do you justify human consioucness" they will give answers like: "people of the past were superstitious" or "praise good luck for this".They dont want to see the meaning of the question because if they see it they will understand that its far more logical to claim that God does exist.Again they downgrade the seriousness of the question

So in the end why it is considered more "smart" for someone to be considered an atheist?Their questions and answers dont sound so smart to me

[God]

I ve talked with atheists and they use arguements that usually are amusing yet they lack seriousness. For example:

Who designed God?

What's unserious about that?

Why does God lets evil in this world since he is so powerful?

If this is such a stupid question I'm sure you have the perfect answer for why natural disasters are needed in God's creation.

Their arguements are not philosofical and do not offer a proof that God does not exist.

We can't do that, it's impossible. Just like you can't disprove the invisible unicorn in my back garden (here we go again...) All we can do is argue that your reasons for God are not good enough.

What they do is search the dozens of religious books and find contradictions.And because there are contradictions they jump to the conclusion that God does not exist.They dont want to see that these books were written by men and its obvious that they would have contradictions

Lots would disagree with you here and say it's all God's word. If some of it has contradictions and errors, how do you know which parts are true?

When atheists are challenged with more serious arguements like "how do you justify the fact that all civilizations had religions"

That's a serious argument? It's because people like to have answers for life's mysteries. I really don't understand how Aztecs sacrificing thousands to their gods is an argument for your god's existence.

"how do you justify human consioucness"

We don't fully understand human consciousness. That doesn't in any way lead to your favoured holy text being true.

[Sphere]

When atheists are challenged with more serious arguements like "how do you justify the fact that all civilizations had religions" or "how do you justify human consioucness" they will give answers like: "people of the past were superstitious" or "praise good luck for this".They dont want to see the meaning of the question because if they see it they will understand that its far more logical to claim that God does exist.Again they downgrade the seriousness of the question

If the best evidence for a God is that many people in primitive societies believed in things like trident wielding Poseidon, the feathered serpent God Quetzalcoatl, the Falcon headed Horus, Archangel Micheal and his fiery sword etc. I think the argument is pretty much over.

Today we don't have arguments over the efficacy of blood letting even though it was widespread for thousands of years among societies in the Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, the Maya, and the Aztecs. We accept this as simply another example of the depths of human fallibility.

If the history of our species shows us anything, it is that nature does not notice the popular opinion of homo sapiens, much less conform to it.

[Nietzsche]

If the best evidence for a God is that many people in primitive societies believed in things like trident wielding Poseidon, the feathered serpent God Quetzalcoatl, the Falcon headed Horus, Archangel Micheal and his fiery sword etc. I think the argument is pretty much over.

You know, I've been thinking about this lately. Obviously, we are 2000 years away from those people who "believed" in such things, but I'm forced to wonder how much was belief, how much was simply shared culture to assist in communication, and how much was just legends that perpetuated themselves by tradition.

Think about it for a second. Imagine 2000 years from now some anthropologist stumbles upon a version of King Arthur, or discovers an episode of Star Wars. How much extrapolation and supposition would be made about the cultures of "the time."

In many ways, I doubt the old myths were believed as fervently as we think. Matter of fact, I think it was Socrates himself who alluded to them as fairy tales to be told to children- and poor ones at that. I think he was more in favor of Aesop's fables rather than the Homeric Pantheon.

In either case, I don't understand what difference it makes whether an argument is "atheist" or "theist." I think the underlying premise can be declared valid or invalid on reason alone. To focus on the theistic requirements is akin to the inability to see the forest for the trees.

[Colonel Dax]

Living this Atheist existence, I can safely say that I have neither heard nor used such arguments before reading this thread.

Just throwing that out there.

[Hakomar]

I think you're missing the point entirely. An Atheist is questioning your belief - why should one believe in Christianity? If one lists evidential and logical inconsistencies in your arguement, and then you fail to rebuff or provide concrete evidence for your belief, then their natural position is to be an Atheist, in practical terms, or in more intellectually honest terms, an Agnostic. The same would be applied to Norse Wotanists, or belief in Leprechauns, and even Santa. I don't need to disprove Santa, or Leprechauns or Wotan to say I don't believe in them; I only have to say there is no compelling reason to and until there is I suspend judgement but in practice retain Atheistic views.

As for:

When atheists are challenged with more serious arguements like "how do you justify the fact that all civilizations had religions" or "how do you justify human consioucness" they will give answers like: "people of the past were superstitious" or "praise good luck for this".They dont want to see the meaning of the question because if they see it they will understand that its far more logical to claim that God does exist.Again they downgrade the seriousness of the question

1) All civilisations having religion doesn't justify any belief, seeing as that appeals to a majority and not logic or truth alone. Howcome everyone before Copernicus (exempting a few) believed the Solar System was not heliocentric, but geocentric? If all civilisations believed 2 + 2 = 5, it wouldn't validate that argument whatsoever.
2)How do I justify human consciousness? Not being a psychologist/biologist/chemist or even physicist, I can't really provide an answer, but just because I, or anyone for that matter, cannot justify the answer, it doesn't necessitate supernatural involvement. The most wise option is to suspend judgement, but keep an open mind for evidence that could sway the debate either way.

[Himster]

The question is: why should we believe in god?
So far theists (as far as I know and would love to be proven wrong) have not come up with a satisfactory answer, as science expands our knowledge of reality theists find answering the question to be harder and harder: so atheism grows exponentially.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Atheists aren't trying to disprove god. Atheists are skeptics, and unless you have evidence for god's existence, we have absolutely no reason to assume it exists.

End of discussion - this is as far as any debate with a theist should go, because what follows next is tons of pseudo-logical garbage thrown at you.

[Irishman]

Their arguements are not philosofical and do not offer a proof that God does not exist.What they do is search the dozens of religious books and find contradictions.And because there are contradictions they jump to the conclusion that God does not exist.They dont want to see that these books were written by men and its obvious that they would have contradictions

Not in the strawman ways that you presented it, but when fleshed out, they offer serious criticisms of God or arguments for God. Though note that most of the arguments you have cited are arguing against a specific positive argument for God, they are not meant to be outright proofs against God.

The argument against the argument of design, the argument from evil, problems of omnipotence and omniscience, are all very serious philosophical questions. Maybe you just aren't talking to the right people.

When atheists are challenged with more serious arguements like "how do you justify the fact that all civilizations had religions" or "how do you justify human consioucness" they will give answers like: "people of the past were superstitious" or "praise good luck for this".They dont want to see the meaning of the question because if they see it they will understand that its far more logical to claim that God does exist.Again they downgrade the seriousness of the question

All I can say is you really need to read some serious literature on the subject. There are serious answers to all of these questions. I think the problem may be that you have either not done enough reading on the subject, or the atheists did not put their points very clearly.

[Enzo]

They're a bit lacking if they attempt to go into any kind of real depth, they will tend to just post up a Carl Sagan video or something. The best argument an atheist can makes is "I don't know but you don't know either". But then faith isn't the same thing as certain knowledge there is the potential there of being mistaken. But then of course atheism as a world view could equally well be mistaken as well so it will balance out.

[Himster]

"I don't know but you don't know either"

Ding ding ding, a theist has learned to parrot what a lot of atheists say, but do you understand it?
Trust a man who seeks truth, distrust a man who thinks he has found it.

[God]

They're a bit lacking if they attempt to go into any kind of real depth, they will tend to just post up a Carl Sagan video or something.

Hey! It was a nice video.

[Ciabhán]

The best argument an atheist can makes is "I don't know but you don't know either". But then faith isn't the same thing as certain knowledge there is the potential there of being mistaken. But then of course atheism as a world view could equally well be mistaken as well so it will balance out.

The difference is we're willing to admit that we don't know instead of just making up, or having faith as you call it.

I really couldn't care less if there is or isn't a god. Until I'm given incontrovertable objective proof of existence I'll stick to not pretending to know.

[Irishman]

Matter of fact, I think it was Socrates himself who alluded to them as fairy tales to be told to children- and poor ones at that.

And Socrates was, if Plato is to be believed, executed for that opinion.

[Sogdog]

Our arguments involve the pointing out of flaws in the whole belief of a god. So far there is no evidence whatsoever that proves there is a god. So, you may find our arguments amusing only because:
A)You don't understand them
B)You don't have the answers
C)The arguments hit a nerve and you are trying to downplay them
You believe ina god.....prove it. It is not up to us to prove or disprove it. There is no evidence for a god ergo sum there is no god.

As an athieist I know there is no god. Everything there is and was points to no god. The bible/koran/torah are stories, no more, no less. Some stories are good, some are evil. To base ones morals, viewpoints and faith in these faerytales is undermining all your potential as an evolved mammal/human being.

Since you believe in an all powerful and all loving god what would you say to parents whose child is dying of leukemia? Mmmmm.....just curious.

[Nietzsche]

There is no evidence for a god ergo sum there is no god.

Absence of evidence... This is not a reasonable proof in my opinion. Science does not even work this way. If scientific investigation assumed from the start that absence of evidence meant X did not exist, I don't think we'd get too far before hanging up our microscopes. Try something else.

Further to say that we don't have answers or that we don't know is also not a compelling argument. Again, if science began with these assumptions we'd still be making weapons out of stone. Try something else.

[Kissaki]

I ve talked with atheists and they use arguements that usually are amusing yet they lack seriousness. For example:

Who designed God?

Perfectly valid counter to "everything must have a designer".

Can God make a rock so heavy that he couldnt carry it?

This is not an atheistic argument, but an age-old theological dilemma. Snigger at atheists all you want, but theists thought of this one first.

Why does God lets evil in this world since he is so powerful?

Same as above.

Didnt God knew that Adam and Eve will eat the fruit in the garden of Eden?

And same as above.

Why an allloving God leaves children die?

That is just a simplistic corollary of the above.

And so on....

Their arguements are not philosofical and do not offer a proof that God does not exist.

Ok, you've presented one atheistic argument so far. And that's actually a valid question: where does God come from?

What they do is search the dozens of religious books and find contradictions.And because there are contradictions they jump to the conclusion that God does not exist.They dont want to see that these books were written by men and its obvious that they would have contradictions

This is what happens when you don't pay attention. Never have I heard anyone claim that because there are contradictions in the Bible, that God therefore does not exist. No, when we point out contradictions, it is precisely to show what you yourself concede here: that the Bible was written and compiled by fallible men. It is not inerrant. We point this out because of Christians who insist that the Bible is flawless, that there are no contradictions to be found.

When atheists are challenged with more serious arguements like "how do you justify the fact that all civilizations had religions" or "how do you justify human consioucness" they will give answers like: "people of the past were superstitious" or "praise good luck for this".They dont want to see the meaning of the question because if they see it they will understand that its far more logical to claim that God does exist.Again they downgrade the seriousness of the question

We can tackle it right here, right now. I'm more than happy to. Ok, first question:

"How do you justify the fact that all civilizations had religions?" Now, if all civilizations had the SAME religion, I could see your point. But the fact that ALL civilizations had religions (and you yourself discount nearly all of them), I do not see this as an argument FOR God. Quite the opposite. It is fairly obvious that all these religions have popped up in order to answer the big questions in life, such as "where do we come from" and "where are we going". In a nutshell, they are attempts to explain the world with limited means to do so. After all, how could someone from the mesolithic possibly explain thunder, lightning, rainbows and other such phenomena? He doesn't know about electric charges, light refraction or anything else. All he's got is guesswork. That's the same in most fields by the way: medicine has been a lot of trial and error as well. And, of course, so long as no better explanation is forthcoming, they're going to stick to their unproven (but unrefuted!) hypothesis that thunder is the gods' anger, that the world is held up by a giant turtle, that the rainbow is God's symbol that he'll never drown us all again or what have you. The true explanations for many of these phenomenon were only discovered relatively recently, so it's no wonder that the myths have had such a firm grasp for so long.

Ok, second question:

"How do you justify human consciousness?" Ok, first of all, even if I couldn't, that doesn't mean "God did it". That's just using the God of the Gaps fallacy, like in the above examples. And in truth, I can't give any more satisfying answer than that it is a function of the brain. What about feline consciousness? Equine consciousness? Bees' hive mentality? These are all fascinating questions. I don't see why they need to be answered by "God", though. If "God" is behind it, you're still stuck with the exact same question, which is "how". So positing God doesn't solve a goddamn thing.

And I am going to be nice and refrain from commenting on your last paragraph.

[Papay]

Not only todays people have science.Science coexisted with religion for thousands years.Science is not an invention of the 19th century.What is different is the fact that today we contact with other civilizations far more easily and we can explore other religions.So we can compare them and see that they are different(so which religion is correct?).That does not alter the case that all civilizations had and have religions.Zeus and Loki could be different names applied to the same God.Ethics and morality is nothing more that the law of the ancient times.Killing someone was a sin just like killing someone today is illegal.The differences between religions proves that none of them is correct 100%.But the huge number of religions perhaps proves that all of them are 30-50% correct.In that case atheists are more wrong compared to christans

[Biggieboy]

Not only todays people have science.Science coexisted with religion for thousands years.Science is not an invention of the 19th century.What is different is the fact that today we contact with other civilizations far more easily and we can explore other religions.So we can compare them and see that they are different(so which religion is correct?).That does not alter the case that all civilizations had and have religions.Zeus and Loki could be different names applied to the same God.Ethics and morality is nothing more that the law of the ancient times.Killing someone was a sin just like killing someone today is illegal.The differences between religions proves that none of them is correct 100%.But the huge number of religions perhaps proves that all of them are 30-50% correct.In that case atheists are more wrong compared to christans

You just don't get it do you?

[Kissaki]

Not only todays people have science.Science coexisted with religion for thousands years.Science is not an invention of the 19th century.What is different is the fact that today we contact with other civilizations far more easily and we can explore other religions.So we can compare them and see that they are different(so which religion is correct?).

Indeed, they are different. Is there any reason to believe any of them are correct?

That does not alter the case that all civilizations had and have religions.

Indeed, which is a serious dent in the credibility of religion. If they were based on evidence, why did they not make the same religions?

Zeus and Loki could be different names applied to the same God.

Zevs and Loke had completely different characteristics, and served different purposes in their respective pantheons. And if it was merely the name that was different: why were the stories different? Oh sure, there are certain parallells, because the stories usually have a moral to them. Just like we find parallells between fairy tales from different corners of the world as well. But in terms of describing natural phenomena, they are all over the place, and it's really a hit or miss affair.

Ethics and morality is nothing more that the law of the ancient times.Killing someone was a sin just like killing someone today is illegal.The differences between religions proves that none of them is correct 100%.But the huge number of religions perhaps proves that all of them are 30-50% correct.In that case atheists are more wrong compared to christans

That's the most insane piece of logic I have ever heard. So when every one of them believed the sun goes around the earth, that makes this assumption 100% correct?