Arguments against religious belief

[Óttar]

I hate uncritical deference to religion on the part of polite society. One time, Barbara Walters was saying 'the Bible is filled with wonderful stories that show how to live a moral life.' This is completely ridiculous as "Biblical morality" is an oxymoronic phrase. The "morality" of the Bible is that of a barbaric society that sanctions murder and massacre of millions merely because they worship different gods. The Bible is full of murder, torture, genocide, and rape all commanded by God. Just look at Skeptic's Annotated Bible; it has plenty of references to murder and bloodthirst, their "The Good Stuff" section with "feed the hungry etc." is tiny compared to the backwards immorality and murder.

There was an adult man on a TV discussion recently complaining about witchcraft in Harry Potter. I'm thinking "a grown man has the gall to complain of witchcraft in Harry Potter, but he conveniently ignores all the murder, bloodthirst, war, child-killing, and rape condoned by the Bible? Ridiculous."

[BeerBaron]

I hate uncritical deference to religion on the part of polite society. One time, Barbara Walters was saying 'the Bible is filled with wonderful stories that show how to live a moral life.' This is completely ridiculous as "Biblical morality" is an oxymoronic phrase. The "morality" of the Bible is that of a barbaric society that sanctions murder and massacre of millions merely because they worship different gods. The Bible is full of murder, torture, genocide, and rape all commanded by God. Just look at Skeptic's Annotated Bible; it has plenty of references to murder and bloodthirst, their "The Good Stuff" section with "feed the hungry etc." is tiny compared to the backwards immorality and murder.

There was an adult man on a TV discussion recently complaining about witchcraft in Harry Potter. I'm thinking "a grown man has the gall to complain of witchcraft in Harry Potter, but he conveniently ignores all the murder, bloodthirst, war, child-killing, and rape condoned by the Bible? Ridiculous."

The Old Testament, which was a different age. It involved things like sacrifice to atone for sin ect. Not since the New Testament, no more sacrifices or weird things basically are required.

[Petros Agapetos]

Science cannot detect nor falsify a God

Apologists sometimes insist that evidence-based arguments against god are ineffective because "science can't touch god." It might be true that scientific approaches have no epistemological access to God, but only if such a god has characteristics making him immaterial, untestable, and non-interactive with the natural world. In other words, an untouchable God is one that has no discernible effect on the natural world.

This argument requires that God is not physical and has no physical relationship to the universe. The necessary absence of possible evidence for a god defined as "untouchable by science" makes it especially difficult to advance the proposition that a generic god or a god with any particular characteristics actually exists. Untouchable by science means inaccessible by anyone; how does the theist demonstrate the rationality of believing in a God that is inaccessible?

It is essential to recognize that science comments on the natural, an has nothing to say about the supernatural. Despite the claims of many apologists, scientific approaches have not proved the existence of any supernatural gods. In fact, supernatural seems to be a catch-all term for things that do not exist (or are believed to not exist) in the natural world; once they are shown to exist, they are acknowledged as part of the natural world! Science clearly cannot touch vague, immaterial notions about the existence of a deity, but if science does manage to touch it, it becomes no longer a vague, immaterial notion.

This argument is similar to stating, "My god might exist because you can't prove it doesn't!" In this case, the atheist might suggest that the theist consider every other religion ever conceived -- Hinduism, Islam, Pastafarianism, Catholicism, Christianity, or any one of numerous ancient religions that have come and gone. If the theist recognizes that this argument does nothing to support the existence of these other deities, why does it support the existence of his or her own god? At the very least, this points out that the argument does not help him or her select among the competing versions of the "untouchable god".

[Petros Agapetos]

Atheists, what arguments do you offer for your lack of belief in a God?

Do you positively hold to the belief that no God exists?

What argument do you have for the non-existence of God?

Which of these options describes you?

A. Agnostic Atheist
B. Agnostic Theist
C. Gnostic Atheist
D. Gnostic Theist

Agnostic means "don't know"
Gnostic means "know"

Theist means "belief in God"
Atheist means "no belief in God"

[Petros Agapetos]

up

[sean]

1. There have been approximately 8000-12000 Gods worshipped throughout human history. All equally improbable. It's telling that the overwhelming majority of these religions were created by ancient, primitive people who had absolutely no understanding of the natural world they inhabited. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

2. The fact that people have believed in countless contradictory religions and superstitions over the millennia. All of them have been just as sincere, adamant, and true in their belief that their religion was the correct one. It seems obvious that modern people's faith is no different than the thousands that came before it, yet so many people can't see that.

3. Following a certain organised religion is like putting all your money on one number in a game of roulette. You could win big, but considering how many religions are out there the odds are not in your favour.

So basically what happens to you after your die is like playing a lottery where you don't the odds or even if there are any prizes, because there are millions of religions with conflicting rules and rewards and for all you know none of them got it right.

4. Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Most scientific disciplines are in agreement about the origins of the universe and earth. There is physical evidence, scars on earth's surface which tell a story of asteroid collisions, floods and ice ages which helps to prove hypotheses and theories.

Religions on the other hand are unable to account for many of the physical, scientific evidence we have of a 4.6 billion year old earth. Proposing that the ultimate cause of everything is a giant magical being flies in the face of the overwhelming bulk of evidence. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

5. Theists seem to be always struggling with their belief. Imagine a gay man that is in some pretty heavy denial about his sexuality. He even has a wife, but struggles sexually and emotionally with her. Is he struggling with a sexual relationship with his wife or is he just gay?

6. A person could donate as much of his money as possible to good causes and spend his life volunteering, but if he is not part of their [insert any religion], he will never be a truly good person.

7. If all human life ended today, every soul gone, would any god still exist without people to believe in them?