What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[bernee51]

I was actually really excited when I saw the title of this post, as I thought it would give me a glimpse into the atheist mind, but I was truly disappointed.

As far as I know, atheism (by definition) is the belief that there is no God.

Close. The position you assume is an active one...that of a 'strong' atheist. All that is required to be an atheist is to not believe in god(s). A subtlety different position to the one you stated.

So if I were to ask an atheist why they don't believe there is a God...I would certainly not expect them to respond "what god are you asking about?"

Why? There are thousands of them. I could be atheist as far as the christian version of god goes but deist in believing that god set up the whole shebang and destroyed itself in the process.

I think the original poster was asking what makes an atheist say "There is no God" and if you have the word atheist under your screenname you should have a straightforward answer for that.

The straightforward answer, for me at least, is there is no need, reason or evidence of god(s) existing as anything other than a concept - a human construct.

State your case, give me your strongest argument for the denial of God's existence.

To deny god's existence is not the same as not believing god exists. The former is an active statement the latter, passive.

What proof beyond reasonable doubt did you find to bring you to the conclusion that there is no god?

there is no proof available that I am aware of that god did not, as I described above, set the whole universe in motion e.g. set of the Big Bang, and in the process destroy itself.

Other gods are more approachable and this is where a description of characteristics attributable to the particular god is required. Is the god you are proposing a creator deity? Is it eternal and unchanging? Is it all-powerful? All-knowing? What other baggage does your version of god bring with it? Did it carry out a genocide? Does it offer 'salvation'? Did it send its 'son' as a sacrifice? Does it take a personal interest in the affairs of man?

Thanks in advance.

Your welcome.

[zepper899]

American Heritage Dictionary says an atheist is: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
from this, God means: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

i believe that Bernee, as well as myself, do not deny the possibility that there was or is a being fitting this description. Myself, i do not subscribe to the belief that their is a discrete particular being/entity/existence that is perfect and rules the universe.

From my readings and interpretations of the bible, i don't believe that
1) god is perfect
- i have found many verses that suggest, TO ME, that god is imperfect.
2) god is ruler
-i only found that god ruled followers of his faith. i do not harbour them any ill will, but don't think that he was speaking to everyone in existence in many teachings.
3) from the above definition of God, i interprete the existence of a singular being. i don't believe that there is one creation that could create all existences. for instance, although one sees physical objects, "one sees by means of sight" (Upanishads). i'm not aware of these verses in teh bible, but then again, i haven't read teh whole thing. if there is one that captures this essence, i would LOVE to have you tell me it.

[bernee51]

American Heritage Dictionary says an atheist is: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
from this, God means: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

i believe that Bernee, as well as myself, do not deny the possibility that there was or is a being fitting this description. Myself, i do not subscribe to the belief that their is a discrete particular being/entity/existence that is perfect and rules the universe.

Actually Zep I do hold that an extant omnipotent, omniscient, perfect creator of the universe is a logical impossibility.

[zepper899]

sorry for misreprestenting. please explain your viewpoint. i don't understand

is god creation then?
is god teh universe?
if you hold he created the universe, what did he come from before he committed this act?

[Cathar1950]

sorry for misreprestenting. please explain your viewpoint. i don't understand

is god creation then?
is god teh universe?
if you hold he created the universe, what did he come from before he committed this act?

One author asked, "who is God's daddy?
If God knows everything where did he get the information?

[bernee51]

sorry for misreprestenting. please explain your viewpoint. i don't understand

I do not believe god(s) exist. I believe god(s) are a human construct, a concept.


is god creation then? No. I do not hold there was a creation event as this, by default, implies a creator.
is god the universe? I don't all the universe god, I call it the universe.
if you hold he created the universe, what did he come from before he committed this act? As you can see from the above I do not hold that god created the universe.

There is no god, the universe was not created. I am of the opinion that the universe, in some shape or form, has always and will always exist.

[zepper899]

sorry for misreprestenting. please explain your viewpoint. i don't understand

I do not believe god(s) exist. I believe god(s) are a human construct, a concept.


is god creation then? No. I do not hold there was a creation event as this, by default, implies a creator.

sorry, i was going on a previous theory i now know you were just presenting, not following: "here is no proof available that I am aware of that god did not, as I described above, set the whole universe in motion e.g. set of the Big Bang, and in the process destroy itself"

is god the universe? I don't all the universe god, I call it the universe.

okay. i hold a more liberal/wishy washy view of god. it traces back to a more neuter noun. the earlier etymology of god was the germanic guthan. the actual definition of guthan was probably closer to the current word numen. (have you heard of Rudolph Otto's concept of the numinous?) American Heritage definition: Creative energy. i think god (i'm not a christian, so i can use the word more loosely) is the force from which existence is emitted. the physical universe is but an aspect of god (numen), as well as all mental existences (forces). i think god is the "concept" of existence in name and form (which encompasses everything both mental and physical.

[Assent]

is god the universe? I don't all the universe god, I call it the universe.

You know, there can be a distinction. By calling the universe "God," one calls the universe a living entity, though it obviously could not be alive in the traditional carbon-based sense. If God were a being in this sense, we as living creatures would be akin to cells of this larger being, and thus merely shards of a much greater whole.

Is this true? Who can say? In any case, this was simply an explination as to why anyone would call the universe "God." There is a point in doing so, though whether or not you accept that point is up to you.

[bernee51]

i think god is the "concept" of existence in name and form (which encompasses everything both mental and physical.

This has almost a Vedantic ring to it. 'God' or "Brahman" is the ground of all being - that from which the phenomenal world has emerged and continues to emerge. It is however not a wilful act of creation.

I see the universe in a constant state of emerging...an eternal 'now'. The process has been and continues to be evolutionary. This commenced with the emergence of the physioshere (the atoms and molecules of existence). After time this was incorporated into and transcended by the biosphere - living organisms. These two have been incorporated into and transcended by the noosphere (the mental). Each 'level' is complete in iteself but also part of the whole...they are whole/parts or 'holons' as Koestler named them.

[zepper899]

i think god is the "concept" of existence in name and form (which encompasses everything both mental and physical.

This has almost a Vedantic ring to it. 'God' or "Brahman" is the ground of all being - that from which the phenomenal world has emerged and continues to emerge. It is however not a wilful act of creation.

I see the universe in a constant state of emerging...an eternal 'now'. The process has been and continues to be evolutionary. This commenced with the emergence of the physioshere (the atoms and molecules of existence). After time this was incorporated into and transcended by the biosphere - living organisms. These two have been incorporated into and transcended by the noosphere (the mental). Each 'level' is complete in iteself but also part of the whole...they are whole/parts or 'holons' as Koestler named them.

so the universe is constantly emerging from an increasing infintessimal previous universe? it is more dense and more dense as one traces back in time?