tell me reasonable points proving God does not exists or religion is wrong

[eyenon15]

What on earth is a library????

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hey,

I'm an agnostic theist.

[Seli]

As the title says. I often find myself when in heated debates with religious people disorganized in my mental process and either forgetting some arguments or weakly presenting them and hate how sometimes only the usual arguments come up in my mind . Counterarguments are welcomed to disprove weak ones but i hope you guys can present me with some really solid ones

Practice makes perfect. And knowing when to stop is part of it.

A usable argument against any religion is that there are so many in existance.

[Glaurung]

You cannot prove the existence or non existence of a God. You can point out logical inconsistencies with regards to particular belief systems and likely causes or point out evidence to a particular belief being man-made rather than the will of God. For example you can show examples of how God's behavior seems to change over time as cultures change over time and that said behavior aligns with said changes in culture... This would indicate obvious man-made influences behind a belief system because an omnipotent god would not change over time, especially not to match the cultural practices of those who follow him.

You do, however, run into the problem that belief systems are usually faith based, which means there is a belief in the absence of evidence or even against evidence contrary to the belief system. This means that the people with hom you are arguing are not necessarily going to listen to any logical argument you can present.

[Castel]

So you're thinking to... convert them back?

Look, this is never going to go anywhere. Nobody's ever going to turn someone from an atheist to a theist or vice versa by the process of internet arguments. Or any arguments, really. It's just pointless bickering and showmanship and ego-stroking.

From whence comes this fatalistic view?

It's even more hilarious given that people above you were arguing that you can never prove a negative. But...X mundane thing is impossible and will never happen. Ever!

[Inevittable]

Go to the library and do your own homework

:cheers:

[Wise Fool]

From whence comes this fatalistic view?

It's even more hilarious given that people above you were arguing that you can never prove a negative. But...X mundane thing is impossible and will never happen. Ever!

I'm pretty sure that "converting from atheist to theist" (or vice versa) does not qualify as a "mundane thing" especially if accomplished by internet "debates."

It's as likely to happen as turning a Democrat into a Republican by making totally awesome internet arguments.

Sure, it's technically possible, in the sense that the laws of physics as we understand them do not place it as a probability of 0.

[Castel]

I'm pretty sure that "converting from atheist to theist" (or vice versa) does not qualify as a "mundane thing" especially if accomplished by internet "debates."

It's as likely to happen as turning a Democrat into a Republican by making totally awesome internet arguments.

Sure, it's technically possible, in the sense that the laws of physics as we understand them do not place it as a probability of 0.

Compared to the sorts of claims we hear about from some religious folks or extremists? Totally mundane. Person believes one thing, person listens to someone else and person changes their mind is as mundane as it gets. Unless you get caught up in extreme skepticism about human cognition (and it must be bad if I'm picking up on it)or fatalism.

[Wise Fool]

Compared to the sorts of claims we hear about from some religious folks or extremists? Totally mundane. Person believes one thing, person listens to someone else and person changes their mind is as mundane as it gets. Unless you get caught up in extreme skepticism about human cognition (and it must be bad if I'm picking up on it)or fatalism.

It's not "extreme skepticism" to make the observation that people don't tend to change their religious beliefs based on internet arguments.

[Castel]

It's not "extreme skepticism" to make the observation that people don't tend to change their religious beliefs based on internet arguments.

Extreme skepticism came from your framing. This new, pragmatic and limited stance is just that-new. I'm pretty sure that this isn't even the first time this has come up.

Saying that arguments don't change people's minds is either extreme skepticism (extreme even if you're gonna go to Psychology to prove it) or a way to broadcast cynicism.

[Theda Baratheon]

:cheers:

I realise I sounded mean then but seriously lol.

[Inevittable]

I realise I sounded mean then but seriously lol.

I'm sure it was well-meaning advice. Except who indeed does go to the library these days? :dunce:

[Rockroi]

There is no way to prove God does not exist; I know of no atheist who defines that aspect of their belief (or non-belief) because they can prove God does not exist. You should not try.

I read a series of books by Victor Stenger which claim to be able to prove that God does not exist, but IMMHO, all those books do is invalidate every conceivable argument for God's existence (and I know that sounds like the same thing, but its not the same thing).

In a nutshell, for a non believer, what I say is the say to the believer: I cannot prove God does NOT exist, but I sure as heck know there is no reasonable argument that supports his existence. No evidence, no logical conclusion, no argument which can explain anything with which the equal's sign would say "= God." And therefore, I can live my life perfectly comfortably and justifiably without ever believing that there is some intergalactic train conductor who will take me where I need to go and who directs the events of the Universe, nor created it, nor created life, nor spoke from a burning bush, nor said anything to Mohammad- to say nothing of the swindler Joseph Smith. Nor died for my sins, nor condemned homosexuals to Hell, nor told a man named Abraham to slay his son.

And there is ample evidence - scientific, peer-reviewed evidence - that can explain what, until very, very very recently religion claimed were its purview, namely, the age of the Earth (Religion said 6600 years old; actual age closer to 4.5 Billion years) how man was created (Evolution is the actual answer; religion said that man was created in his current form and lived along side every animal in its present form). Science can explain why we are the way we are and its not because at the foothills of some Mountain God bothered to tell people "Here are Ten Things You Need to Remember" and no mention of rape or of slavery, but at least three Commandments dedicated to remembering who was in charge (One true God, no Graven Imagery, don't take his name in vain). We know that man acts the way he does because we are social creatures that know Human Solidarity - Evolution demands it, we would not have gotten this far without it. We know that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way round...

In other words, everything we know and everything we have been able to figure out have come not BECAUSE of religion but IN SPITE of it, IN fact there is not a single field of knowledge or study or appreciation of the human condition which requires the belief in god. Not a one.

There is no persuasive argument for the existence of God that has not spawned a far far far more convincing rebuttal. We cannot say there can be no such entity, but that the discoveries and knowledge and the pushing back of ignorance in the face of our own slow and painful development tends to show something else entirely; that the Universe seems to behave as we would expect it to behave if it had no designer and no design that was not ruled upon by the laws of nature and not some super-natural creator. .

Martin Amis, the great author, said that the only intellectually honest position to take is that man lives in the Natural World and can only know the World through Natural Laws; because God is - as described and defined for 100s of years - wholly Super-Natural, man cannot know what that is and therefore, man must be agnostic.

The problem I have with that is that by definition (and I know the slight-of-hand that Ser Scott is trying to play here) and agnostic is somebody who says that man cannot know God and therefore does not believe in God NOR professes a disbelief in God (the term was coined by Lord Huxley in a debate; I wish he had stayed quiet because its a needlessly confusing vestigial term). The problem is that if you live your life as if there were no God then you are- absolutely - an atheist. You are saying God cannot be known and that you know of no God- you are an atheist (just as Ser Scott is- unless he has had a remarkable and recent change of heart- a theist).

The issue is that everyone is an atheist: nobody believes is Zeus; what has become of Isis? Or Ptah? or Dea Dea? Gwydion? Enki? Pluto? Venus? Aku? Zagaga?

That's the problem with theists - not only do they know there is a god.... they know which one is the right one! And that that God is so mutable, so malleable that every theists says that they believe in a god ... of their very own (usually wholly untethered to anything in the First Testament of the Bible).

And therefore, in the end, its up to the theist to explain what they mean when they say "God." Certainly not Ra; probably not Mami or Allatu. But Yahweh? Well, get them to describe what they believe and why they believe it and at that point you can slam them for the reasons those arguments don't go anywhere. I don't think that task can be undertaken. That's what others have said and I think that is the way to go- tell the theist if they still believe in Dimmer or Jupiter or Lleu. They will say that they do not know those and revert to Yaweh.

And at that point you have them.

Because the entire premise of the theist position is that there is - at the top- an all knowing, all caring and intervening Creator who manages this entire system. And there is no way a theist can get there from here.

[Eponine]

Actually these debates start when someone asks me of my beliefs , this is followed by thr heated debate and attempts to convert me

If you want to continue talking to them, make them provide the proof. My response might be, "I can't prove that no gods exist, but I've never encountered any compelling reason, either internal or external, logical or emotional, to believe in a god." If they want to try to give me a reason, I'm willing to discuss it respectfully. (I'm kind of proud that I've never met anyone who could outlast me on focused respectful discussion about religion. I'm sure there are people who are more educated in religious philosophy than I am who could pose me questions I don't have an answer to, but I sure haven't met any of them trying to convert strangers by confronting them in the street or going door to door).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Rockroi,

I believe God exists but I do not claim absolute knowledge of God's existence and I do accept the possiblity that I may be wrong we'll all find out in the end.

[Rorshach]

I'm sure it was well-meaning advice. Except who indeed does go to the library these days? :dunce:

My wife does.

She always forgets to return the books on time..

[Theda Baratheon]

I'm sure it was well-meaning advice. Except who indeed does go to the library these days? :dunce:

I'm a University student so I have to :P

[Rockroi]

Rockroi,

I believe God exists but I do not claim absolute knowledge of God's existence and I do accept the possiblity that I may be wrong we'll all find out in the end.

(I don;t want this to be the whole debate so, sorry if this derails things):

Then you are a theist, and there is no agnosticism attached to it. You say there is a God; agnosticism is not a code or measure of certainty; its simply saying that that group of people do not know and admit that they will likely never know.

What you and I are saying is the following: "I do/do not believe in God. I may be wrong."

However, at the end, I add in the point "I am open to any evidence that would point the other way." Because your theism is based on faith (as opposed to evidence) you do not have that last piece. And because of that you are not agnostic; you have made the informed decision to ignore evidence and to base your understanding of God on Faith. You are a theist.

[Castel]

Rockroi,

I believe God exists but I do not claim absolute knowledge of God's existence and I do accept the possiblity that I may be wrong we'll all find out in the end.

I don't see the meaningful difference here. Whether or not his argument is right you are still doing what Rockroi is talking about; you just say that you might be wrong. But you will continue to believe in a certain type of God (and not others) that you believe you'll have to wait until some grand supernatural event to see proof of.

Conspicuously backing away from certainty is useful in practice -since I can tell you won't blow me up- but it's not really an out here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Rockroi,

Yes. There have been recent debates wherein the terms "Gnostic" and "Agnostic" have be thrown around to discuss qualitative levels of belief. I do not claim to know with certianty that God exists therefore I cannot claim to be a "Gnostic" in that sense. Therefore I call myself an agnostic theist. That is not, I freely acknowledge, the customary definition of a pure "agnostic". It is a more narrow and particular definition.

Good to see you posting.

:)