best arguments against religion (no theists)

This is just something I find hilarious. Jesus was supposed to die on the cross...but he then came back to life...so what did he accomplish? Had he actually remained dead, then he really did accomplish the task of giving his life for our sins. However, when he came back to life, it is comparable to taking the welfare check right out of the needy's hand again; the big "F- You" to all of humanity. Some savior!

Religion however, is a very interesting topic. If you strip away the belief in god, then you have a philosophy. Buddhism originally was a philosophy until some people decided to worship Buddha like a God. Take away Jesus and God and you have message for how people should live their everyday lives. That also means you take away all he parts about the Israelites warring in the name of God against the Canaanites, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Romans, etc. Take away Mohammed and Allah and you have the same thing, without having to kill in any of their names, in fact, you can even take it farther and abolish anything that has to do with misogyny. Take Hinduism and take away their primary and secondary Gods and all you are left with is how to live in harmony with nature. The only reason why religion is religion is because there is an invisible being with whom the theistic leaders can wage wars for or justify their actions with.

Even if the religion becomes philosophies, they still have to face some pressing problems. Some of them are: the inaccuracies of explaining the world, its emphasis on creating the "us or them" dilemma to polarize people against one another, some demand the unjust treatment of those different from the "leaders", etc.

To show that there is little credible evidence for a god, you have to attack the root axioms first. This would mean we have to start at the primacy of existence vs the primacy of consciousness. The primacy of consciousness means that there is a conscious act that brought everything into existence. This is also called the "first cause" argument that theist tend to use in their apologetics. The "first cause" states that in order for everything to exist, there has to be a creator, if there is a creator, there is a beginning and an end. Here is where we have problems. If we analyze this objectively, we notice that we are begging the question here. We have to accept at face value that existence had at one moment been nonexistent, that there is a beginning and an end, and that there is a creator; none of the statements is necessarily true, but the theist wants you to assume that they are in order for the argument to be effective. Let us look at why the argument fails at the most fundamental level. First of all, the act of creating, whether intelligent or unintelligent, requires a physical entity to enact the forces for creation. If there is already a physical entity to enact the forces, then there could not have been "nothing" before "anything". Thus, existence exists and the primacy of existence is starting to become a more reasonable argument than the primacy of consciousness. The act of creation requires time and space if the fact that something created has a beginning or end. If there had been nothing, then that means time also has to be created. Why? because time is arbitrary, it is just the relative positioning of two entity to each other, time can be distorted if need be and thus there really is not such thing as the time we know. So to say that time can be created is absurd, this means time has to exist even before the act of creation. Again, if something has to exist before the act of creation, then existence has always existed. So, here is where things get kind of screwy. Theist then propose that their god exists outside of existence so that it does not have to be bound by any of these rules. Sound great doesn't it? Well, actually, it still doesn't get them out of the trap of simultaneous existences. If something is outside of existence, that means it does not exist, because there is no possible way even conceptually for anything to exist outside of existence. Because if it exists outside of existence, it still exists within the realm of existence and get their god absolutely nowhere.

Here is something interesting to consider. The universe is the sum of all existence, anything that is known to exist can only be found in the confines of this universe, no one can say for sure that they can exist outside of this universe because there has been no evidence for it and no one has ever experience that before. The theists say their god exists outside of existence, that means it cannot be anything definite and thus has an infinite identity (this also means the god is everything yet also nothing, and is outside of this universe.). However, they turn around and say their god is just, wise, etc. Those descriptions limit him within a sphere. If he is a wise god, then he cannot be unwise. But in the previous definition that God can be anything, then that means he can also be unwise too. The theists are now trying to violate the law of identity. A=A, A cannot = non-A, and thus A cannot equal A and non-A simultaneously. The letter "A" is the essence of the object. A chair is no longer the same chair if any part of it's identity is changed. The same with a god. If the god is infinite in capabilities, it is non-A, if god has a definite and definable ability, then it can be designated as an A. The god is now a contradiction because both characteristics are trying to become one. No contradictions can exist in this known universe (unless the contradiction is a concept), a paradox can. Contradictions means both qualities has to exist simultaneously, not one at a time in repetition since such entities do exist.

Thus, if God has a contradicting nature, and contradictions cannot exist outside of a conceptual level, then it is most likely that God does not exist except within a conceptual realm. If God has to exist in order to act out the creation of existence, there cannot be inexistence, and thus contradicts the act of creation itself. Therefore, see the conclusion mentioned before. Just because God most likely does not exist, does not make the conclusion definitive. However, the conclusion does work consistently until some evidence comes about to prove the notion incorrect.

(I know that someone out there might mention that when I said "objectively", human beings cannot be objective. My question for him/her is to assess whether that assertion itself is objective? "People cannot be objective" is an objective assertion and therefore contradicts the conclusion.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If God can create a Rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it,
Then there is something he cannot do (that is, cannot lift the rock).
If God cannot create a Rock that is too heavy for him to lift,
Then there is something he cannot do (that is, cannot create the 'too heavy' rock).
God cannot simultaneously achieve both. Therefore, God cannot be omnipotent. :bugeye:

If God is all knowing, all seeing, knows what we are thinking, knows what we do and God knows what is best; Then why is there a need to physically bow, bring your hands together and pray? If you think something, God would already know what that thought was, so there is no need to actually say it. If God knows what is best, why not just leave your faith in God? Why are you questioning God? Example, If a relative is sick, it is because God wants and has made that person sick, for he knows what is best. If you pray and ask God to make that person better, you are essentially questioning God. Asking him to reconsider what he is doing, to make them better. God knows what is best- Why pray?

If we can live in heaven for eternity (that is without end) then why does there have to be a beginning? If this life can't be it, why can the next life be it? If God created the world, then who created God?

:shrug:

God is humble. therefore God would not recognise himself as a 'God'. If God does not recognise a 'God', then God is... an atheist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have tried for many years to argue against religious people and have only succeeded in making them look stupid, it has had no effect on their 'belief'. I am in Love with a Muslim girl who ardently loves me back but cannot marry me because I am not Muslim. This girl sees religion as the most important thing in her life, yet breaches it everyday. Has never read the Koran and does not care for logic because her religion is inside of her. This is the direct result of culture and indoctrination. To question their profit is a sin. This is the beginning of the death of reason. When things cannot be questioned...

The jesuits once said "Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man." This is the pure truth. This is why we have 'World Youth Day' and the Hillsong Churches aimed squarely at Children. They are securing the future of the religion. Islam permits a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman but does not permit a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim Man. Why? Because under Islam, the child takes on the fathers religion. As a Muslim one of the first duties is to raise the child as a Muslim. This secures the growth of Islam.

Don't bother with adults already infested, concentrate on the youth before their feeble minds are corrupted. Good luck! Be prepared for heartache and frustration. But don't relent.

Imagine there's no heaven, its easy if you try, no hell below us, above us only sky...

P.s. Everything you are looking for is in Richard Dawkins' brilliant book 'The God Delusion'. Buy it, it is well worth the read.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All modern Religions are pagan adaptations of the ancient Egyptians theology, which has its foundations in those who studied and relied upon movements of the sun, moon and planets to gauge seasons, in order to survive. The christian cross in front of a circle is an astrological symbol holding the sun as the centre of the zodiac. Son of a virgin stems from the sun beginning from the constellation Virgo. This doesn't just apply to Christianity. It's all there. It's complex. But it all makes sense and explains a hell of alot! See for yourself:

www . zeitgeistmovie . com

Compare with Samuel Sandmel’s article 'Parallelamania'.

Another interesting point to note is all prophets studied religion. Coincidence? Even Mohummad, who was a merchant, studied Christianity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums. I'm glad you're here. Now I have someone with whom I can communicate about ancient religions and astsro-theology.
~ Medicine*Woman

Welcome!!!

 

For the purposes of this thread, I am a Theist.

They have the free will to act against the prayer of another, but that doesn't mean they will succeed in reversing its effect.

Free will.

Of course he can; it's called free will. Plus, some Theists do believe that destiny plays a part in some aspects of our lives.

Why is this an argument against religion?

Who says following the 'wrong' religion will keep you out of heaven? As long as you follow a good and decent life you will not be subjected to oblivion.

Some of the new testament is considered wrong by some as well. The entire Bible is seen as false by many people. What is your point?

 

Is it really free will if you are damned to hell for exercising it?

 

Well, the Bible says that thou shalt have no other god. You could argue that all religions speak of the same god. That just isn't true. They are like night and day most of the time. But, not really surprising, they are exactly the same (sometimes word for word) at other points. But, the point is the basic doctrines are not compatible. So unless god is the god of chaos.......hmmm.:m:

Sweet, let's throw the Bible in the fire and start over discovering if there is a god using science, life experience, and reason! I'm half serious.

There are many many more people who see the Bible as 100% true than those that see it as false. So what is your point?

 

My argument against religion is and always has been the fact that there is no need for it. Not one person alive today can say with all certainty that God exists, not one. Likewise no one can say He doesn't exist with 100% accuracy. Therefore one either decides yes or no. Whatever the decision is, that is what you believe. There is nothing extra you can offer to either choice because no one indisputably knows the truth. So it behooves us to not lanquish on religion any more than you would a passing fancy. It is totally meaningless to pursue it any further because, as it is proven here every day, it solves nothing.

If you care to personally indulge in a private philosophy of your own making then by all means do it but as soon as you start spouting off that you've found and are beginning to know God then you must understand the reluctance of some people to heed your words.

How can anyone admit they have no proof of God and then follow it up by telling us what they know about Him? Problem is that some people are looking for God, desperate to locate Him and are eager to jump at the chance if it sounds good. It becomes religion. Religion is synonymous with fiction, if you don't know then there is nothing that can ever be written to explain God, plain and simple.

 

Psychotic Episode

A problem with this argument is that atheism does not have a means to arrive at a conclusive answer. Theism does. So atheism is kind of like the default position of not applying theistic practices. Kind of like a person who does not believe that immunizations are real cannot conceive of any real need for immunizations.

Usually a claim of knowledge is preceded by theory. Next comes the application of this theory or practice. And finally comes conclusion. The problem of atheists is that they insist on venturing on to topics of the conclusion without approaching practice, and, for the most part, theory.

How can anyone who has no knowledge of the theory that surrounds god and no experience of the practice that surrounds that theory declare that no one can know god?

Some other people are looking for excuses to neglect god, desperate to dismiss him and are eager to jump at the chance if it sounds good

more plain and more simple is that claims stand in tandem with practice ...

 

shallow, ignorant, and close minded? why dont you just end your life if nothing matters but the pure fact we were created from nothing, unless your one of those "enjoy the time in between" fake stupid bullshit someone needs to smoke some pot and think for a couple hours, and based on your believes your mind wont take you that far. your drilling in the wrong direction maaan. your believes are your beliefs.

 

Of course its a completely fallacious answer.

 

there are normative descriptions behind the claims of atheists?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What does it matter? Your answer is completely fallacious.

 

Hi Cato and friends. Here's a quick capture of my thoughts.

Premise: We make decisions. These decisions can be based on random or non-random causes. Since God cannot possibly judge us on what occurs randomly, we examine the non-random. Non-random explicitly requires a pattern or 'direction' to our decision making. This pattern cannot be chosen by the person making the decision, because even if they 'could' change their non-random biases they'd only change them to something based on their existing state.

In summary: we may have free will to do as we want, but are not free to choose what it is that we want.

In conclusion: Since a supreme creator cannot therefore hold us responsible for our actions and this is the manner of the Christian God, the Christan God does not exist.

 

its false?
then your normative descriptions do certainly matter ....
so whenever you're ready

 

Among other things, but ok...

Can't agree. Even if we agree to reduce decisions to being based on causes, you have not justified excluding mixed random and non random causes.

Who?

why not?

Why not skip the preamble and just say "Let's examine decisions based on non random causes?"

Not established, also even if non random causes produce patterns, it is not show they are constrained to produce a single specific pattern. Any decent real problem will have multiple solutions.

Not shown. Same problem as before

I must disagree.

Something being inconceivable to you doesn't preclude its existence. You would do better to go with proving the entire notion of god is self contradictory.

 

Not best thoughts for universal religion invalidation

I AM NOT SURE THESE CONSTITUTE THE BEST THOUGHTS ON WHY RELIGION DOESN'T REFLECT REALITY.

--how can god grant prayers without infringing on free will? if you pray for a certain outcome, then people would not have the free will to do otherwise.
So there is no free will or at least partial free will? That may invalidate a major premise of certain religions and related contentions based on it but even a god can't do the impossible; violate predetermination, etc.


--how can evil exist with a good and omnipotent god? God may not be omnipotent but considering god has the whole universe which may be infinite to deal with theoretically even infinite power divided up among it it may not be enough to ensure an outcome in a specific place especially considering the supposed evil countering forces of immense abilities.

--god cannot be totally omniscient without our futures being predetermined.
So our futures are predetermined? God may easily be less the described in certain literature. It is easy to ascribe overly positive attributes on to entities that allegedly you owe your existence to.

--an omniscient and good god has only one choice in any situation, which is to do the most good. therefore god has no free will.
So god has no free will; big deal as it it may be that that probable fantasy has no choice theoretically. It may be that certain religions got it wrong or maybe misquoted god

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

--if god kept you out of heaven for following the wrong religion then god would be immoral for not showing you the right way, and since there are so many religion, either god does not care if you worship, or god is immoral. If god is immoral or indifferent as a possibility allowable by certain religions god ISN'T RESPONSIBLE for man's teachings though it is very highly probable that mans' teachings created "god".

 

Can god become so stupid even the religious won't worship him?

Do religious people have any standards at all?

 

It's a bit difficult to give argument against god without defining the term god, but what the heck.

Against Religion: Assuming god exists it would be pure hubris to presume to understand the mind or intention of god, even more so to usurp god's authority by speaking on it's behalf.

Against God: A perfect being has no motivation to act. In fact, any action would create change and therefore imperfection. So if god did exist, it couldn't create the universe or man. The universe and man exist, therefore god does not.

~Raithere

 

I'm a theist, but here are some of the arguments AGAINST God's existence that I find most difficult to answer... (It's really refreshing to argue from the opposite position. I'd recommend it!)

1) Do we need God? No. Science better explains how we come to exist. Since Darwin, Paley's 'argument from design' for God's existence is a redundant theory. Why continue with an outdated and discredited concept (God), when we have a better explanation in evolution. Science will eventually explain all such natural phenomena, so we do not need God.

2) Does God answer prayer? No. In 2006 the most complete prayer research study (Benson, H. 2006) showed that intersessionary prayer had NO POSITIVE EFFECT on heart patients. Indeed, some patients who were prayed for got worse! The simplest conclusion is that prayer does not work because God does not exist.

3) Does God help us to be good? No. We are told religion helps us live a virtuous life. For example, Christians (we are told) are 'born again' in Christ as better people (than non-Christians). Yet, the history of religion is one of bloodshed, burnings and torture by the Christian Church. The Inquisition tortured and burned alive thousands of people for daring to contradict their doctrines. Religion still creates killers: The 9/11, 7/7, and Bali bombers, the "Lords Resistance Army" in Congo, IRA/UDA in Northern Ireland and suicide bombers in Iraq and Israel/Palistine are just a few of the long list of religiously motivated murderers.

Since the decline of religion in the West however, and the rise of secular science, we have got more humane, more democratic and more liberal. Doesn't this indicate that we've been lied to about the benefits of religion?

4) Is "God = Love"? Take a look at the God of the Torah/Bible/Q'ran. God commands genocide, rape, murder, infanticide and dreadful punishments for minor infringements (for a list see http://www.evilbible.com/). Many believe God will eventually send millions to a Hell of eternal torture. Many religions enforce strict rules e.g. opposing gay rights and equal opportunities for women. Many demand harsh punishments (flogging, execution or cutting off limbs) for minor crimes (e.g. adultery), or for non-belief. Is fear the real motivation for belief? Is this a God you'd want? Wouldn't we be better off without this tyrant?

5) Does God save us? Remember the Tsunami of Boxing Day 2004: Did God command it, or was he powerless to prevent it? If the first He is evil, if the second, He is impotent or non-existent. Praying to God brought no protection. Moreover, Nature is 'red in tooth and claw'. Suffering, disease and death are written into the very design of the universe it seems... Is this a 'perfect' creation designed by a sadistic God or just blind evolution at work? Conclusion: God either delights in suffering, or He doesn't exist.

6) Does God exist? No. Science shows we don't need God to explain the universe. Research shows that God doesn't answer prayer. History shows belief in God doesn't make us good. The Bible/Torah/Q'ran show us that fear motivates belief, and Nature shows us that the universe is blind to our suffering. Conclusion: There is no God. :shrug: