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

[Rockroi]

Good to see you posting.

:)

And I really shouldn't; I get too caught up in the debates and the criticisms and everything and I need to do "income generating work" ... but... .Jesus... if I'm not here to tell the Unsullied why they are not the first person to say "R+L= J." then who will?

WHO WILL?

[Inevittable]

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

I do the bulk of my university librarying by post, because it's cheaper for me to send a book 2nd class than it is for me to actually go to the university library in the car.

Anyway, I digress...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Rockroi,

;)

[dornishscorpion]

Go to the library and do your own homework

This is part of my homework

[dornishscorpion]

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.

Thank you for this great reply.If only i could present my points as clearly and as orderly as you do here , my frustration comes from this, basically it greatly weakens my standing and in turn it makes my interlocutor feel triumphant since he has the advantage of having memorized his arguments rather than attempting to reasonably refute mine.

[polishgenius]

This is part of my homework

...that was her point.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DS,

What is your actual assignment? What class is it for?

[Rockroi]

Thank you for this great reply.If only i could present my points as clearly and as orderly as you do here , my frustration comes from this, basically it greatly weakens my standing and in turn it makes my interlocutor feel triumphant since he has the advantage of having memorized his arguments rather than attempting to reasonably refute mine.

First of all, you are too kind.

Second, I had a lot of time to prepare my comments; probably far more time than you had in a debate or discussion.

Third, just keep a few basic, fundamental points and keep those close by that you can always rely on to express your points. Most notably:

-There is no evidence for the existence of God that cannot be easily refuted. Almost everything a person states as proof of the evidence of God is completely different than what they would have said in 1820 or 1320 or 320; they have had to be changed to fit the new reality, all discovered, advanced and perfected by science, not faith. As the boarders of science have expanded, the outposts of religion have collapsed. They don't have the geocentric theory any longer; they don't have Creation; they don't have near-death experiences (can easily be explained and recreated in a laboratory)

-When they bring up the Bible remind them that the Bible was written as an ad-hoc collection; none of the New Testament was written contemporaneous with Jesus' life (Matthew between 70 and 110; Mark 66–70, Luke 80-100; John 90-100); and that most Christians are hardly better than atheists as they don't follow many of its precepts (homosexuality, death to children etc).

-If they bring up miracles reflect back to them the argument by David Hume which went (paraphrasing) like this: When reflecting on something that you think is a miracle, ask yourself a question: which is more likely: That the laws of nature have been suspended, and for your benefit; or that you are mistaken? And that the longer and longer removed we are from the miracle (Jesus' resurrection for instance) the more and more definitive that evidence must be and the more and more doubt we are allowed.

-Explain that atheism is not a religion much in the same fashion "bald" is not a haircut and the "On-Off" switch is not a TV channel.

-You are not angry at God. You simply to not believe he exists and that religion has done a terrible job of explaining anything.

-You enjoy your life; you do not need an intergalactic theme-park operator to give your life meaning.

-You know right from wrong because any 5 year old knows that without any insertion of the supernatural. Ask any 5 year old if its okay to take toys away from their friends. You would be stunned how sad, angry and DEFIANT a child will become if you say, "We are going to take all of your friend's toys and you can have them all." You would be stunned- as I was- at how sad and angry the child will become for their friend. No God, no JEsus, no flood, no sin necessary.

-Science is not a religion. Science is the search for truth; Religion is the celebration of the faith in things already believed to be true.

-And say to them- with a straight face - that you get to live in a world where nobody spoke to an illiterate, ancient farmer and demanded that that man gut his boy. And that you don't follow that. And that had God asked you to kill your heart you would tell that deity "No, fuck you." And that no matter what happens to your eternal soul - heaven, Hell, or nothing - that you can spend eternity burning in Hell KNOWING that you would never had killed your son or daughter.

And watch some debates on line and on You Tube. Obviously, Christopher Hitchens is a must; go to Michael Shermer (unbelievably underrated); Dawkins, Dennett and Sam Harris. Watch more than one and get their cadence down. As time goes on you will develop your own arguments to augment theirs.

[dornishscorpion]

DS,

What is your actual assignment? What class is it for?

i meant it metaphorically. My hope from opening this thread is finding new arguments and ideas basically

[Gneisenau]

I find most ontological arguements unpersuasive.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I find it useful (not just in debates, but to clarify my thought processes as well) to make distinctions about what is being discussed. I like creating two distinct categories, Organized Religion and Original Creation.

In all honesty, it is easier to debate the first category. Organized religion is the creation of humans, involving the divinity of certain beings and all the dogma that is created from that.

The second category can get into discussions of the origins of the universe, and involves certain things that science doesn't have access to. For instance, other than theory, we have no way of knowing either way what happened at the very beginnings of the universe. Some of the more interesting debates occur here, and this is where reasonable people can actually agree to disagree.

My advice is to ignore arguments involving the first category, and engage in those of the second category. It will definitely be more enjoyable.

[AndrewJ]

I feel the greatst argument against religion lies not in proving God doesn't exist (impossible), but in understanding why religion and the belief in God(s) does.

I'm sure everyone here understands the Scientific Method, but I'll restate it. It basically says that what ever theory best fits the available evidence gets accepted as the correct one. Over time, weknesses and failings may come to light. And a new theory is put forward which better explains the original problem and addresses the failings of the original theory. People will (slowly) come to accept that theory as the superior one and the original is discarded. This is science at work.

Religion succeeded greatly in the first stage, but failed miserably when it came to the second.

Thousands of years ago, when early people tried to understand the world around them, they came up with the best possible explanations based on the knowledge of the time. They saw lighting strikes and determined a great being was hurling lightening bolts across the sky - they called this being Zeus. Others heard thunder booming and determined that Thor was swinging his mighty hammer in the heavens. Others looked at the sun and stars in the sky and the animals and plants on the earth and came up with the theory that is was created by an all powerful god.

These weren't stupid peope. They were some of the greatest minds of the time, contemplating the world around them and coming up with the best possible explanations. They simply didn't have the same level of knowledge that scientists have at their disposal today. Modern scientists might not be any more intelligent than the people who came up with the original theories, but they've had centuries to build off each others' work and gradually improve our understanding.

And improve it they have. There are now theories that far better explain the world around us - such as the Big Bang leading to the formation of stars and planets and evolution giving rise to the life we see around us. These theories far, far, far better fit the available evidence.

Where religion failed is it forgot the earlier explanations were just the best explanation at the time. People accepted them as incontrovertible truths that they would die to defend. Religious people fail to accept that the original udeas were created by men - and men are fallible. (And women - please don't hit me).

Early generations of humans looked out at the night sky and saw the stars and the moon and wondered "why are they there?" They came up with ideas and explanations as to why. How could they not? But it doesn't make there ideas based on their limited knowledge and learning the absolute truth.

[rawmilkmike]

Life as we know it is obviously quite imposable so God is as god an explanation as any. As a matter of fact one definition of God is “That which is unknowable”. Religion on the other hand is physical but the number of religious beliefs is immeasurable. Some are obviously wrong. Some are obviously harmful. Some can not be known. Some are necessary for every day life. Some are necessary in science. Most we accept without even realizing it. Each is a discussion of it's own. I haven't read any of the responses yet. It will be interesting to see which ones come up. Once something is proven it is no longer a belief.

[TerraPrime]

Life as we know it is obviously quite imposable so God is as god an explanation as any.

If I were a person of faith I would find this justifiication for my belief in a deity to be quite insulting. I am an atheists/misotheist and I still find this explanation belittling.

As a matter of fact one definition of God is “That which is unknowable”.

You're conflating two very different ideas. "That which is unknowable" is not the same thing, at all, as "that which can justify what we currently cannot explain."

Some are obviously wrong. Some are obviously harmful.

Obvious in what way? Wrong in what way? Harmful in what way? Whose standards are we using to judge these things? Is Judaism's forced mutilation of the male genitals wrong? Is the 7th Day Adventists' refusal to accept blood transfusion wrong? Is Cahtolicism's decision to bar women from the ruling cast of the Church wrong? Is the condemnation of fornication wrong?

Some are necessary for every day life.

Which religions are necessary for every day life? In what way are they necessary?

Some are necessary in science.

Which religions are necessary for science? In what way are they necessary?

[Castel]

I feel the greatst argument against religion lies not in proving God doesn't exist (impossible), but in understanding why religion and the belief in God(s) does.

I'm not sure you can jump from "religion was used at some point to explain things" to "the very concept of theism is obsolete". Well...sure, you can. But I don't think that it'll be looked kindly upon in a debate. This thread has already gotten into the distinction between what some ancient Greek (or modern literalist) believed and what some theist or philosopher might. It's a pretty broad dismissal.

[AndrewJ]

I 'm of the opinion that the reason religion exists is clear when viewed through that filter.

Putting aside all pre-conceived notions for a moment - when you consider early humans trying to understand the world and the universe with their limited knowledge and understanding, well... it seems to me that religion and Gods are pretty much inevitable. But just because it's inevitable in no way means it's correct.

Others will obviously disagree (and have disagreed for millenia). Hence the debate. :)

[Rockroi]

Religion on the other hand is physical but the number of religious beliefs is immeasurable. Some are obviously wrong. Some are obviously harmful. Some can not be known. Some are necessary for every day life. Some are necessary in science. Most we accept without even realizing it. Each is a discussion of it's own. I haven't read any of the responses yet. It will be interesting to see which ones come up. Once something is proven it is no longer a belief.

I don't know what religions are "necessary" for science. In fact, most religions have historically bad track records towards science.

As far as religion being necessary for "every day life" this argument basically means that poor people or dying people or people going through difficult times will cling to God. And that's fine, but hardly necessary. Plenty of atheists are poor, get sick, have troubles etc. And the corollary therein is really classist - namely that poor people should keep their gods even if its not true. Its like saying "Look, being an atheist may work for people with money, but poor people- they are just so far gone - those people NEED God." I think the whole frame of mind is ugly.

I'm not sure you can jump from "religion was used at some point to explain things" to "the very concept of theism is obsolete". Well...sure, you can. But I don't think that it'll be looked kindly upon in a debate. This thread has already gotten into the distinction between what some ancient Greek (or modern literalist) believed and what some theist or philosopher might. It's a pretty broad dismissal.

But its a pretty straight line between the two points. Religion was man's first attempt at explaining what we did not know; tried to explain natural phenomenon like tidal waves, volcanoes. etc; it tried to explain philosophy, health care, death, and the life thereafter.

And being our first, it was also the worst. And that over the centuries man has advanced past these original explanations. Slowly- and usually in open and obvious opposition with those who claimed to know the word of God - man learned more, understood more and made systems and processes to explain and understand even more thereafter. We knew that witches and curses did not cause illness; that there was no correlation between good behavior and lack of earthquakes; that slavery was very wrong and homosexuality was not to be condemned. We did that, the BIble did none of it.

And that's because the men who made the Bible did not know any better - they did not know the Earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around; that micro-organisms caused illnesses and not dust-devils spitting curses.

We have better explanations for all these mysteries, but we still dwell under this shadow that forbids us to think about this progress or to even acknowledge that these advances have occurred, but they were all part of God's plan from the beginning. Thus denying to man his rightful place- where Einstein and Newton and Darwin are all brilliant and in no way divinely inspired or assisted.

And thus- in one swoop - those glories that the theists always claimed as their own are suddenly completely and totally explainable without God's intervention or involvement, and that those few things that still seem questionable, God seems to be on the wrong side of history (the fact that the Bible supports slavery at every turn). Therefore, the Bible seems less and less divinely inspired and more and more the product of the thought police. Meanwhile, we- man- has overcome our lowly origins an have advanced the species and explained God out of the equation.

That leaves the believer in a very unenviable position - if you agree that there is zero evidence that God played any roll in any of these advancements or that you can accept these advancements without god's involvement, then where is the evidence that God exists? And recall that once you turn the Bible inside out like that- wherein we all agree its not a good explanation for philosophy, history, biology etc- then the Bible stops being the inerrant, unalterable word of God, and starts becoming something else entirely: namely, the post-it-notes of men trying to create God and not the other way around. Believing in the Bible (and therefore God) becomes strictly optional.

And at that point, we open up the entire debate: if its OPTIONAL, then why believe in God? Is it true? How so? Is it beneficial to believe in God? How? Do religious or "God fearing" people act better? Are they better people?

And at that point its all over because we already know the answers to all those questions and that religion does not make us any better off.

So, at that point there is no reason to believe the Bible is divinely inspired, that its not true and that it does not make people act any better.

That's why theism is obsolete and why the Bible's irrelevance is the starting point that gets us there.

[ShenSnake]

I refer you to this.

If their beliefs are actively harming someone, speak up. If they just want to believe in a beardy sky fairy, let them, it's none of your business.

As a Christian I think this is really good. I think religious people should also take this view when dealing with Atheists as from my experience religious people can also be dicks if not worse when discussing the issue.

Back to the main issue i don't think there are any 'points' you can give as most people just go back to faith. I personaly know it's not the most rational thing but it's a conclusion I came to on my own accord and it works/feels right for me. It really bothers me that the majority of wars are done in the name of religion but underneath it all whether God exsists or not there is a beautiful message that seems to have been lost. I try not to argue about it anymore because most people started using Science against me when I don't see why science and religion don't work hand in hand, but that's just me.

[igrewupinKL]

Hey OP,

If you're looking for some arguments, watch this documentary called Religulous hosted by Bill Maher.

It's funny and one of the best doco's on Religion as it's easy to watch.

[TerraPrime]

The

majority of wars are done in the name of religion

because while

underneath it all whether God exsists or not there is a beautiful message

,

that beautiful message of mercy and redemption and forgiveness is mired in passages of extreme cruelty, prejudice, and exclusionary customs. It is hardly a surprise that people who adopt the Judeo-Christian faiths frequently end up being practitioners of these cruelty, prejudice, and exclusionary customs. It would be a... miracle, if they didn't.

I don't see why science and religion don't work hand in hand, but that's just me.

It really depends on the religion.

The religion that says the Earth is 6000 years old? Or that Jesus co-existed with Dinosaurs? Yeah, those religions are not compatible with science. Deism, for instance, is completely compatible with science. Even Catholicism, with all its own flaws, seems quite happy to accept evolution and basic sciences.