Why I don't believe in god/A case for atheism

[Biggieboy]

Hi guys,

in this thread, I will post the reasons why I'm an atheist, and this will also be my case for atheism, since theists seem to blame atheism for running away from the burden of proof (even if we don't share it, but anyways), here are some reasons why I'm an atheist. Note that I will not make a truth claim about the existance of God, since I feel it cannot be proven nor disproven. I will try to make it as structured as possible, though this is a problem for me.

-Evidence of proof

Let's just start with the biggest one for me: no convincing proof for the existence of God has ever been given, period. That's quite a bold statement to make, but this is simply the case. Yes, the majority of people on earth are theists, but not all of them are muslims, or christians, or any kind of denomination, and that's not taking into account all the now-dead religions. you have dozens of religions, of which some have subbranches, and some subbranches even have subbranches! If the existence of God or gods was so self-evident as some theists would have you believe, why are there so many different religions? Also, if you tell a theist that you don't believe in his particular deity, you'll usually get a reply in the lines of "Well, disprove it". First of all, the definition they put forth for this specific deity usually means they are non-disprovable by definition, which already is a problem on its own. Yet when it comes to other religions, they don't seem to be so eager to disprove them. If atheism has the burden of disproving any religion they don't believe in, it's up to the theist to disprove any religion they don't believe in either. If you're going to insist on sharing the burden of proof, be consistent in it. Atheism just takes it one religion further than theists.



-The problem of good and evil

When talking to theists, a definition they might put forward for god is "a being of infinite goodness", along with omnipotence and omniscience (feel free to tell me if any theists believe this is NOT the case). If that is the case, why are there people doing evil things? If God is an omnipotent being of infinite goodness, why would he allow evil and wicked things to happen? It shouldn't be out of his reach to prevent this from happening, or making a creation where there is no evil, only good. If the theist in question is a Christian, they might argue along the lines of original sin. Let's take a look at that for a moment.
According to the bible, the story so to speak starts with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Before Eve is created, God says to Adam:

15 And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

it's interesting to note that the tree of good and evil contains the knowledge for what is right and wrong, therefor Adam nor Eve have knowledge of what is right and wrong.

The story then goes on with Eve being corrupted by the snake, and Adam in turn being corrupted by Eve, as told in basically the whole of Genesis 3:

3 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:

3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

This brings up two problems in my opinion:

1- God punished Adam and Eve for eating from the tree of good and evil, even though they had no concept of right and wrong. God is basically punishing someone with no concept or right and wrong.

2- God was apparantly not aware aware of the serpent corrupting Adam and Eve. So far for his all-knowing!



-The problem of suffering

this one sort of relates to my previous point, but is a bit more subtle. I'm talking about infant mortality, tsunami's, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, birth defects, horrible diseases too numerous to mention,... If there is a God who is omnipotent and omniscient, he sure did a poor job with his creation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality

10 million children die before their fifth birthday. That's roughly the population of Belgium, including every man, woman, child,... What kind of creation is this? If you take a naturalistic approach, you can easily explain how all these things happen: meteorology, droughts and disasters in harvests, poor healthcare,... Yet when you make the assumption of a caring, personal creator, I think this speaks against him, or at least draws a poor portrayal of him. if you make a deistic claim (a uncaused cause who said creation in motion and be done with it), there is very little to argue against, but then again little argue FOR it. But most religious people aren't deists, they're THEISTS, which entails a God with who you can have a personal relation, who cares about your existance, who answers prayers,... Again, not proving there is no God (I'm not bold enough to make such a statement), but convincing power of such a being is getting smaller and smaller.



-"Objective morality"

This is an argument I keep hearing, and more frequently (mostly from Christians, I'll grant that). It basically says that without God, we can't have objective moral standards. Sure, atheists can ACT moral, they just don't have a sound basis for it. First of all, I think it's very insulting to say that without religion, we wouldn't know right from wrong, or have no basis for it. Second of all, if they are talking about the God of the Bible, I"m glad I'm not part of his morality. On regular occasions he condones and actually orders genocide, he seems to be okay with slavery, he kills every human being AND creature on earth save for Noah's family, and two of every "unclean" creature, and seven of every "clean" creature (why seven?) for the wrong-doings of people. that includes innocent children, and most animals! I mean, what? What has a giraffe ever done wrong? From what I understand from theist (Christians in this case), we humans are the only ones with morals, since we don't condemn lions for killing cubs for example.
Let me get this straight: MIGHT DOES NOT MAKE RIGHT! If I were to put a gun against your head and make you do something, that's not morality.



-"Fine-tuning", "intelligent design", irreducable complexity etc.

This is an argument I also frequently hear. it goes along the lines of "the eye can't have evolved, it's too complex to have been evolved, it must be designed". Of course you can replace eye with anything you wan really. The fact is however, that the eye DID evolve, and there are many video's on Youtube and numerous articles that explain how the eye came to be.
Another one is "The universe if finely-tuned for life. Turn the knobs just a little bit, and you wouldn't have life". First of all, this usually involves HUMAN life; bacterial life is FAR more resilient than human life. Second, clearly they haven't looked at the universe, and notice all the horrors out there. First of all, human life would be impossible without our atmosphere. As soon as you go outside this "safe zone", you will die almost instantly without the proper equipment, and that's just space. There's cosmic radiation, Gamma Ray Bursts, supermassive black holes, pulsars,... Things that would kill you instantly, and in some cases, can wipe out entire planets or galaxies. This is NOT a universe finely-tuned for life; it's a universe that ALLOWS life, in some specific cases.



These are some of the reasons why I don't believe in God. There are other reasons which I'm willing to share in another comment, but I feel this should suffice for a starting post, especially for us atheists who seem to "run away from the burden of proof".

Hope you enjoyed this, and I will await your replies

[Grobar]

God punished Adam and Eve not because of concept of good and evil but because they broke His only commandment which was given to them for self-restraint. Adam and Eve lived in full bliss, the only thing they had to do is to stay away from forbidden tree and yet they didn’t, thus they despised their Creator.

Suffering, diseases and all sorts of natural disasters are consequences of our sins. Natural world is tied with our spirituality so when we sin natural order in visible world becomes distorted and we have disasters.

It is not possible to become good without God. God is the only source of goodness. Our human ‘goodness’ is limited by time and circumstances. In a given set of life circumstances all of us are capable of doing evil thing. We simply on our own don’t have the strength to be always good especially not in terms of infinite life.

Regarding intelligent design take for example eyelashes, they protect our eyes from dirt and other particles. How can a dead nature show such care and love for human beings by giving us such small but very useful thing on our eyes? Wouldn’t it be then more reasonable to conclude that we are created by intelligent being rather than nonentity?

[Ciabhán]

Regarding intelligent design take for example eyelashes, they protect our eyes from dirt and other particles. How can a dead nature show such care and love for human beings by giving us such small but very useful thing on our eyes? Wouldn’t it be then more reasonable to conclude that we are created by intelligent being rather than nonentity?

If they were intelligently designed they wouldn't fall off into the eyes they are supposed to protect...

On a more serious note:

Not really. Assuming we evolved from ape's who are covered in hair eyelashes make sense. Over thousands of generations those who had a gene that left hair over their eyes incurred less eye damage, thus surviving to breed, this eventually led to the majority of humans having eyelashes. Occasionally a different lingering gene, from some distant ancestor that survived(in spite of the lack due lucky birth location[less dusty for example] or some other variable that allowed it to slip through) long enough to breed, crops up and you will find people who have no eyelashes due to a genetic variation.

Honestly I find it hard to believe that a supposedly intelligent creator would create something with so many easily mangled and breakable parts(our genetics). If someone made humanity he was a poor engineer as we are terribly overdesigned. Simple functional designs with the least possible chance of failure and without unneccessary additions(for example the human appendix, our non functional but still semi-existant tails[coccyx and extensor muscles], the goosebump reflex that puffs up mammals to look more intimidating when frightened or to help warm them when cold, male nipples, etc) would be more likely.

[Elfdude]

Regarding intelligent design take for example eyelashes, they protect our eyes from dirt and other particles. How can a dead nature show such care and love for human beings by giving us such small but very useful thing on our eyes? Wouldn’t it be then more reasonable to conclude that we are created by intelligent being rather than nonentity?

This is simple. All mammals have the default to be covered in hair. Even our barest skin has hair. The difference isn't in hair but in how fine that hair is. On our bodies with the advent of clothing hair no longer serves to keep us warm. But hair does serve as a breeding ground for parasites and insects and etc. Not to mention humans tend to see lack of hair as more beautiful than hairy. Thus throughout our bodies we've had the selection to prevent ourselves from growing thick shaggy hair. Around our eyes is different however. Without eyebrows humans can't express emotion properly further without eyelashes things easily get into our eyes, this means that there was never a reason to get rid of our eye lashes further most mammals have eye lashes for the same reason. Does a platypus have eyelashes? No. Why not? Presumably the structures have yet to evolve.

1.) Now, on the other hand I'm certain you're familiar with the eye?

If you are you know that the eye is made from several layers, these layers are NOT connected to each other, despite this they are extremely fragile and high G load regularly tears them not to mention other factors affecting this. Considering the fix is simply to stitch the two structures together and thus prevent thousands of cases of retinal tearing every year did an intelligent designer intend for this to happen?

Of course this makes perfect sense if the eye evolved from progressive cupping of the surface epithelial cells.

2.) 1 in 5 embryos are spontaneously aborted for a variety of reasons. Did an intelligent creator intend for this to happen?

Of course this makes perfect sense if we understand there's a standard mutation rate and recombination in DNA which causes genetic instability in many embryos resulting in their premature death.

3.) Our foot has an artery in it that can shed our blood in seconds, was it divine intention that if we step on a thorn wrong we die? Our knees are improperly designed for our upright posture. Our pelvis is also misshapen.

Of course this makes sense when you realize we evolved from creatures which walk on all fours on their tip toes and not their heels.

4.) Why did the creator appear to use inferior anatomies as a basis to design our bodies when we were supposed to be designed after him. Does this mean god is also flawed?

Of course this makes sense if you subscribe to evolution.

5.) Why does our backbone grow faster than the muscles supporting it can cope with? Does the creator intend us to have warped and misshapen backs?

Of course this makes sense if we evolved from creatures who walked on all fours.

6.) Why can't the creator decide what he looks like? If we're all made by god in his image does this mean god is a multiheaded doppleganger of an entity?

Of course this makes sense if genetic mutation results in different physical traits.

7.) Archea have enzymes that can function at 200 degrees celsius and above, why didn't the creator allow us to survive hotter temperatures? Our bodies are cooked at those temperatures. Does the creator intend we're barbecued and eaten?

Of course this makes sense if Archea evolved independently.

8.) Bacteria are perfectly suited to growing on our bodies, why would the creator design an infectous potentially deadly garden of bacteria that we carry around with us where-ever we go?

Of course this makes sense if bacteria were evolving to be parasites of both ourselves and our ancestors.

Need I go on? Either the creator is far from perfect or he was not involved in directly designing this mess called life.

[XIII]

Hi BiggieBoy,

Let me try to give a reply to your points from a person on the other side (i.e. a theist). I look forward to an engaging and fruitful discussion with you.


I. There is no evidence for theism.

I'd argue that this statement is simply false. There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God as the arguments of Natural Theology provides us with plentiful, plausible and sound arguments for the existence of God. You've got cosmological arguments (of various varieties: Liebnizian, Thomistic and Kalam), teleological arguments, moral arguments, arguments from consciousness, historical arguments and arguments from religious experience.

Some of these are bad, granted, but some of them are actually quite good (imo).

In the above post, you list two such arguments (the moral and teleological arguments) and maintain that they don't succeed. Let's examine each of them in turn and see if your arguments succeed in refuting them:

1. The Moral Argument

First of all, the moral argument isn't an argument that maintains that atheists cannot know right from wrong or that atheist are inherently immoral. What the argument maintains is that if God does not exist then moral realism is false. It literally does not matter what atheists believe (or theists for that matter) as the non-existence of God would imply that objective moral values and duties do not exist. Secondly, the argument doesn't presuppose the Christian God. Even if the Christian God (as such) does not exist, that doesn't mean that the argument is false. Thirdly, the argument also doesn't maintain that power confers moral authority.

2. The Teleological Argument

You say that the argument presupposes human life (and concludes that the generation of it is grossly improbable) and that bacterial life is much more resilient than human life. Supposedly, the improbabilities involved with the generation of human life need not be applicable to bacterial life such that it need not be that grossly improbable for bacterial life to evolve as much as it may be the case for human life. Well, in the teleological argument that I find most plausible, it literally does not matter at all whether we are talking about bacterial life or human life as all instances of life would be so grossly implausible as to be almost impossible to countenance. We are literally talking numbers that are so utterly, cosmically improbable that your mind literally would be incapable of comprehending it.

II. The Problem of Evil/Suffering

First off, as your rightly point out, the argument from evil is not an argument against God per se, it is an argument against conceptions of God who conceive God as being omnibenevolent or perfectly good and omnipotent/omniscient.

Supposedly, a perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient God would not allow the existence of evil in this world.

Is this true? I'd argue no, it's not since this whole argument hinges on a hidden premise: that there is no possible world in which a perfectly good God would allow the existence of evil. While initially plausible, this premise is problematic since it takes no cognition whatsoever of the possibility that God might have attendant justifying reasons that might lead him to allow for evil's existence. It brushes aside the fact that God might have overarching intentions such that he would allow the existence of evil in order that these intentions obtain.

Well, what might this intention be then? Well, theists typically maintain that God's ultimate, overarching intention is that of a world of free creatures should freely choosing to be in a loving relationship with him and that this world justifies the existence of whatever evil that might be necessary to achieve that end.

Cheers.

EDIT: Corrections and additional arguments.

[Biggieboy]

Hi XIII, I've seen you here before, but never really debated with you, so it's a pleasure to do so, and hear the other side of the story

Hi BiggieBoy,

Let me try to give a reply to your points from a person on the other side (i.e. a theist). I look forward to an engaging and fruitful discussion with you.

I. There is no evidence for theism.

I'd argue that this statement is simply false. There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God as the arguments of Natural Theology provides us with plentiful, plausible and sound arguments for the existence of God. You've got cosmological arguments (of various varieties: Liebnizian, Thomistic and Kalam), teleological arguments, moral arguments, arguments from consciousness, historical arguments and arguments from religious experience.

Some of these are bad, granted, but some of them are actually quite good (imo).

There are plenty of ARGUMENTS for theism, that I'll grant you. But none have been convincing for someone who isn't a theist himself. Maybe we can go trough the arguments one at a time, because otherwise the posts may get too long, but I'm willing to debate these arguments.

EDIT FOR YOUR TWO ARGUMENTS:

In the above post, you list two such arguments (the moral and teleological arguments) and maintain that they don't succeed. Let's examine each of them in turn and see if your arguments succeed in refuting them:
1. The Moral Argument

First of all, the moral argument isn't an argument that maintains that atheists cannot know right from wrong or that atheist are inherently immoral. What the argument maintains is that if God does not exist then moral realism is false. It literally does not matter what atheists believe (or theists for that matter) as the non-existence of God would imply that objective moral values and duties do not exist. Secondly, the argument doesn't presuppose the Christian God. Even if the Christian God (as such) does not exist, that doesn't mean that the argument is false. Thirdly, the argument also doesn't maintain that power confers moral authority.

How do you come to that conclusion? I don't get it. What makes it that the existance of God implies that objective moral values and duties exist, whereas if he doesn't exist, neither do objective moral values and duties, if there is such a thing? What ARE objective moral values and duties to start with?

2. The Teleological Argument

You say that the argument presupposes human life (and concludes that the generation of it is grossly improbable) and that bacterial life is much more resilient than human life. Supposedly, the improbabilities involved with the generation of human life need not be applicable to bacterial life such that it need not be that grossly improbable for bacterial life to evolve as much as it may be the case for human life. Well, in the teleological argument that I find most plausible, it literally does not matter at all whether we are talking about bacterial life or human life as all instances of life would be so grossly implausible as to be almost impossible to countenance. We are literally talking numbers that are so utterly, cosmically improbable that your mind literally would be incapable of comprehending it.

I'm not comfortable enough with the teleological argument, so please explain to me what it entails before I can actually make a useful reply to this.

II. The Problem of Evil/Suffering

First off, as your rightly point out, the argument from evil is not an argument from evil per se, it is an argument against conceptions of God who conceive God as being omnibenevolent or perfectly good and omnipotent/omniscient.

Supposedly, a perfectly good, omnipotent and omniscient God would not allow the existence of evil in this world.

Is this true? I'd argue no, it's not since this whole argument hinges on a hidden premise: that there is no possible world in which a perfectly good God would allow the existence of evil. While initially plausible, this premise is problematic since it takes no cognition whatsoever of the possibility that God might have attendant justifying reasons that might lead him to allow for evil's existence. It brushes aside the fact that God might have overarching intentions that might lead him to allow the existence of evil in order that these intentions obtain.

Well, what might this intention be then? Well, theists typically maintain that God's ultimate, overarching intention is that of a world of free creatures should freely choosing to be in a loving relationship with him and that this world justifies the existence of whatever evil that might be necessary to achieve that end.

Cheers.

As in your first paragraph, I agree that this is "an argument against conceptions of God who conceive God as being omnibenevolent or perfectly good and omnipotent/omniscient." That is part of atheism. A deistic god wouldn't have this problem, but it has little explaining power -just the fact of creation-, and it's a theory that in my opinion at least cannot be proven nor disproven, so it is of little interest doing so. The problem with me lies with the theistic one.
And I have a problem for some reason with the concept of a creator granting us free will, I can't exactly put my finger on it. Imagine if we make an analogy of a human being creating a computer. Why would the creator grant a computer free will, more or less ensuring that it will fail from time to time? And what about psychopaths for example, who seem to lack the ability for good, and have no real choice in it? And why would human beings be the only creature with free will? Surely all the other creatures are God's creation as well, why wouldn't they be granted free will? Sound like specism to me. Also, doesn't this leave him non-omnipotent and omniscient? It all makes little sense to someone is an atheist.

[XIII]

Hi XIII, I've seen you here before, but never really debated with you, so it's a pleasure to do so, and hear the other side of the story.

Ditto. On with the discussion then.

As a note though, I will only address one topic at a time (among the multitudes that your OP brings up) so as to focus the discussion and maintain clarity. Rest assured that I will never willingly obfuscate the discussion nor ignore points that you bring up. If ever I somehow do, just point it out to me and I'll respond to it.

How do you come to that conclusion? I don't get it. What makes it that the existence of God implies that objective moral values and duties exist, whereas if he doesn't exist, neither do objective moral values and duties, if there is such a thing? What ARE objective moral values and duties to start with?

The notion of objective moral values and duties existing is simply the notion that there are indeed such things as moral facts. Moral facts are facts in the sense that they accurately depict reality (as with scientific facts). It is to say that the nature of the sentence, "Gravity pulls" is the same as the sentence "rape is wrong" in that they both (try to) describe an objective fact about the world.

Moral realism is simply to say that some moral sentences are true (in this case, that "rape is wrong" is true).

As to how moral realism implies theism, let's stick with moral realism first so as not to muddle the discussion.

The problem with all those arguments is that they are subjective. The moral argument requires proving that there are objective morals. The others are purely philosophical meaning they exist only in the minds of those who have made them(and you could say in the minds of those swayed by them). All require assumptions and none have any concrete objective evidence.

That doesn't mean that they are wrong just that they cannot be proven true for all people. That is the basis of my atheism. Without any subjective experience leading me to persoanlly believe in a god entity and without any objective evidence that I can't deny I have no reason for believing.

The problem here is that you've defined away any possibility of theism to be true. Anything that is not scientific, you consign to be 'subjective' and then summarily dismiss them. There are a variety of problems with this (not least of all the fact that it's simply question-begging) but the worst one is that you seem to take no cognition whatsoever of the fact that literally everything that you know (or think you know) is filtered and apprehended via the lens of subjective experience. All knowledge is ultimately perceived via subjective experience as there is literally no way for any of us to go outside of our cognitive faculties to test the veridicality of our beliefs.

Take your fundamental belief, for example, that the scientific method is the best method for understanding the world as it really is (though I merely assume that you believe this for now). At the very end of the day, whatever justifications you may have for this belief (such as the successes of science) will have been transmitted to you via subjective experience (the very subjectivity which you decry as being unworkable when it comes to knowing truth).

EDIT: Merged posts.

[Ciabhán]

The problem with all those arguments is that they are subjective. The moral argument requires proving that there are objective morals. The others are purely philosophical meaning they exist only in the minds of those who have made them(and you could say in the minds of those swayed by them). All require assumptions and none have any concrete objective evidence.

That doesn't mean that they are wrong just that they cannot be proven true for all people. That is the basis of my atheism. Without any subjective experience leading me to persoanlly believe in a god entity and without any objective evidence that I can't deny I have no reason for believing.

[Condottiere 40K]

I like to compartmentalize; chances are that they are no God(s), and if they do exist, unlikely to have been interested in either our dirtball or some recently evolved species.

However, if you separate religion as a cultural relic which is comforting to grab on to at times of (di)stress, I think most of us can get along in that aspect, since we'll find plenty of other things to divide us.

[Sogdog]

The fact that theists need a greater power threatening them with eternal damnation to be moral does not speak volumes about said morals. As an atheist I am good to people because I want to be good, not because in order to get into "heaven" I need to be good. One could almost say that without a god threatening them theists wouldn't be moral persons.

BiggieBoy you have hit the nail on the head again. Well done. I have yet to get an answer to my questions.

[Himster]

There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God as the arguments of Natural Theology provides us with plentiful, plausible and sound arguments for the existence of God. You've got cosmological arguments (of various varieties: Liebnizian, Thomistic and Kalam), teleological arguments, moral arguments, arguments from consciousness, historical arguments and arguments from religious experience.

Only one of those is reasonably convincing to a rational mind: first-hand Experience. The rest are invented/unconvincing probabilities about a mostly unknown closed system with no possible comparisons (aka complete BS), a subjective explanation as to why morality is "objective" and I can't imagine what historical arguments there are except for truly awful.

[basics]

" 1- God punished Adam and Eve for eating from the tree of good and evil, even though they had no concept of right and wrong. God is basically punishing someone with no concept or right and wrong."

Biggieboy,

To that point they did indeed have no knowledge of good and evil, their eyes being covered as it is written, but you miss the whole point here. They weren't punished because they ate the fruit principally, rather because they didn't believe God that they would die should they do so. That is the most important aspect of the affair. It is all about life and death, your life and your death. Believe God and live. Don't believe Him and die, in your case as mine the second death that being eternal torment.

" 2- God was apparantly not aware aware of the serpent corrupting Adam and Eve. So far for his all-knowing!"

But God was quite aware of what was going to happen because as part of His good pleasure it was ordained in the heavens that the Lamb of God would be sacrificed before the foundation of the world. He knew what the knowledge of good and evil would mean to man in the longrun because by His all knowing He put in place One who would alleviate their situation but only once again by believing Him and that before a man set foot on the planet.

Why men won't believe comes down to being persuaded not to just as Eve was. Every aspect of man by his fallen nature is not to believe and Satan knows that only too well. The evidence that Paul says is all around has no relevence because man will conjure up anything not only to disbelieve God but to eraze Him from his mind if that were possible. What's strange is that Jesus still builds away regardless of the thoughts and beliefs of man and man cannot stop Him.

[Sogdog]

basics.....how exactly do you know what your god was thinking? Are you his shrink? Looking at the way the world is so hostile to man and the genetic mutations that kill mankind I think your god needs a shrink. You guys are always shouting about the unfathomableness of god and then quote his exact thoughts as if he spoke to you. Remember if one person hears a voice it is schizophrenia. If lots of people hear a voice its called religion.

"It is all about life and death, your life and your death. Believe God and live. Don't believe Him and die" what nonsense! what does this mean? a subtle threat theists use to get people to tow the line no doubt. What does your jesus build? you say a lot without actually saying anything usefull.

"But God was quite aware of what was going to happen because as part of His good pleasure it was ordained in the heavens that the Lamb of God would be sacrificed before the foundation of the world. He knew what the knowledge of good and evil would mean to man in the longrun because by His all knowing He put in place One who would alleviate their situation but only once again by believing Him and that before a man set foot on the planet." do you have any idea what this means? christ, I don't! Sounds crazy. This answers nothing basics, just confirms to us Athiests what we suspected all along. Religion is mumbo jumbo, it has no meaning, only threats!

[Col. Tartleton]

Reasonable Argument for Atheism:

There's no reason to believe in God.

Reasonable Argument against Atheism:

No!

[Ciciro]

There is no proof that God is real, but there is also no proof that God is not real. Since that is the case no one can argue that God real or not real, because they would have no proof.

[Lazarus]

they would have no proof.

Right. Except in a situation where there's no proof that something exists, the default stance to take is that it does not exist. Think of anything that you don't believe in and ask yourself - "have I proved that this does not exist?" and you'll see what I mean.

[Ciabhán]

The problem here is that you've defined away any possibility of theism to be true. Anything that is not scientific, you consign to be 'subjective' and then summarily dismiss them. There are a variety of problems with this (not least of all the fact that it's simply question-begging) but the worst one is that you seem to take no cognition whatsoever of the fact that literally everything that you know (or think you know) is filtered and apprehended via the lens of subjective experience. All knowledge is ultimately perceived via subjective experience as there is literally no way for any of us to go outside of our cognitive faculties to test the veridicality of our beliefs.

Take your fundamental belief, for example, that the scientific method is the best method for understanding the world as it really is (though I merely assume that you believe this for now). At the very end of the day, whatever justifications you may have for this belief (such as the successes of science) will have been transmitted to you via subjective experience (the very subjectivity which you decry as being unworkable when it comes to knowing truth).

In a way yes.

All human experiences are subjective. We may all(the entirety of humanity) interact with the same rock and notice something different about it. However it is possible for all of us to interact with and experience that rock.

Subjective is something that exists only in the human mind while objective things have a physical presence. Our interpretations of the characteristics of the rock are subjective but the rock is undeniably objectively extant.

I don't need to see a bacterium or an atom for myself to trust in their existence because I KNOW I COULD if I so chose. God/s are a little hit or miss.

[XIII]

In a way yes.

All human experiences are subjective. We may all(the entirety of humanity) interact with the same rock and notice something different about it. However it is possible for all of us to interact with and experience that rock.

Subjective is something that exists only in the human mind while objective things have a physical presence. Our interpretations of the characteristics of the rock are subjective but the rock is undeniably objectively extant.

I don't need to see a bacterium or an atom for myself to trust in their existence because I KNOW I COULD if I so chose. God/s are a little hit or miss.

And here you betray exactly what I mean when I say that you're begging the question against theism. Look at how you define objective: it is physical. This was the entire point of contention, that not everything that exists (i.e. objective) is physical and by defining objective to mean physical, you are rigging the game against theism and begging the question against it.

How do you figure? If he BELIEVES genocide is morally wrong, that's what he BELIEVES, subjectively. You could have used ANY example, and HIS agreement or disagreement would only have been his subjective own. You might as well have done the same thing with music: "Do you like Pink Floyd? If yes, then you're a musical realist, plain and simple." See the flaw in that reasoning?

And I hope you realize that just because does not believe in objective morals, they still feel their subjective morals as strongly as moral realists do?

Because beliefs have a "mind-to-world direction of fit". In other words, beliefs aim at truth. They aim to represent the world being a certain way (such as the belief that the moon is rocky and barren aims to represent that the moon is, in fact, a certain way, e.g. being rocky and barren). When we say that someone believes that P, we say that someone believes that P is the case (i.e. that P is true). You can't say that you believe that P while at the same time saying that you believe that P is false.

When someone believes that genocide is morally wrong, they are saying something about Genocide being a certain way (in this instance, ascribing to genocide the property of "moral wrongness").

Beliefs are a species of propositional attitude distinguished by their having the mind-to-world direction of fit.

Propositional attitudes are psychological states characterized by a psychological mode, Y, and a propositional content, P, schematically: Y(P). My belief that the earth moves has belief as its psychological mode, and that the earth moves as its propositional content. A desire that the earth move has the same propositional content, but a different psychological mode, desire . . . Beliefs are true or false . . . They aim at truth. The belief that Solomon was wise is true if and only if (iff) its content matches the world, that is, iff Solomon was wise. Belief ’s aim to represent how the world is independently is reflected in its being irrational to retain a belief when one sees that it does not match the world. Thus, beliefs have the mind-to-world direction of fit. A desire, in contrast, seeks not to match how the world is independently, but for the world to come to match its content.

Belief, Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1), p.32

[Kissaki]

Because beliefs have a "mind-to-world direction of fit". In other words, beliefs aim at truth.

Back in my student days, studying archaeology, the Indiana Jones films were particular favourites of ours. There is especially one quote from the Last Crusade which is actually very pertinent to archaeology, but also to science and philosophy in general:

"Archaeology is the search for FACT. Not the "truth". If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall."

They aim to represent the world being a certain way (such as the belief that the moon is rocky and barren aims to represent that the moon is, in fact, a certain way, e.g. being rocky and barren). When we say that someone believes that P, we say that someone believes that P is the case (i.e. that P is true). You can't say that you believe that P while at the same time saying that you believe that P is false.

When someone believes that genocide is morally wrong, they are saying something about Genocide being a certain way (in this instance, ascribing to genocide the property of "moral wrongness").

See, this is exactly why the quote above is so damned good. I may believe one thing, yes: but that does not mean I do not realize my beliefs are subjective. Our beliefs are especially coloured by our preferences. One mother to another:

"Look at what your son did to my apple tree!"
"Nonsense, my boy doesn't do things like that, he's a good boy!"

A conservative music lover concerning modern music:

"That's not music."

A person from culture A judging culture B:
"That's barbaric!"


What you are saying is that "subjective" means "false", but that's not true at all. Are you for example saying that your taste in music or literature is false? Just because you realize that different people have different tastes, this does not mean that your tastes are in any way devalued. You still think your favourite book or song is just as good, and milk chocolate tastes as sweet as ever. You think that if you thought these preferences were objectively true, that you would enjoy them more?

[XIII]

I may believe one thing, yes: but that does not mean I do not realize my beliefs are subjective.

The point is that the nature of beliefs is that they express belief about the world being a certain way. To believe that P is to believe that P is the case in the real world. Let's set it in ordinary language to illuminate the point: to believe that the sun is a ball of fire is to believe that the sun is a ball of fire in the real world.

In that sense, beliefs are always about propositions about some facet of the real world being this or that. To say that I believe that "genocide is evil" is also to say that "genocide is evil" in the real world. Beliefs may be subjective in the sense that they occur within the mind, but that isn't the point. The point is that to believe that P, is also to claim that P is true.

Strictly speaking, if you believe that "genocide is evil", then you are a moral realist as you are claiming that it is true that "genocide is evil" in the real world.

Our beliefs are especially coloured by our preferences.

So?

What you are saying is that "subjective" means "false", but that's not true at all.

No, I'm not saying that subjective=false. After all, my entire discussion with Ciabhan is centered on me trying to point out to him that to say that something is subjective is not to say that something is false/unreliable/not objective.

EDIT: Grammar corrections and reworded arguments.