Reason itself

Commonsense

Empirical evidence

A healthy amount of skepticism, about any claim of any kind, means I automatically don't believe anything that doesn't meet the above criteria

Science is just the way of explaining the natural world around us, with the greatest degree of accuracy possible

Science doesn't make miracles impossible

I don't believe in miracles, for the same reasons you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster

It was started as a parody and to show the absurdness of Intelligent design, because if you want to say a supernatural god entity created the universe, then why not include this absurd idea of the flying spaghetti monster.

However my reasons for my atheism

Logic, reason, the lack of evidence to show that any religious god, deity etc, etc, etc, exists.

Not to say that a god like being cannot exist....but the descriptions give to us by religion and others from the theistic community has such a low percentage for existence that it is practically impossible. However no evidence of any god has ever been shown to exist at all, not one little itty bitty evidence outside of faith and delusion has ever been presented to me, as such I do not believe in the existence of any god/deity/supernatural (which to me is meaningless term to being with).

Depends which god you're talking about specifically, although science hasn't conclusively proved that thor the Nordic god of thunder doesn't exist, there is a perfectly reasonable scientific explanation for why thunder happens, that doesn't involve a supernatural god getting angry and slamming his hammer in Valhalla

Science doesn't disprove negatives

Ie science cannot disprove that an invisible supernatural teapot isn't spinning round your head, this is where commonsense, and reason kick in

Thank you for those arguments, they were most enlightening. Would anyone else like to present additional arguments against the existence of god/ gods? I am already familiar with Antony Flew's argument that those who claim that something exists should have to provide the evidence, not the other way around. I am more interested in the arguments from the "strong atheistic" position, that go out and enthusiastically attack the idea of the existence of a god or gods.

P.S. deludedgod may I suggest that you read Antony Flew's latest book? He recently converted from atheism to deism, because he thought that the evidence pointed to the existence of a higher power (I am sure you will have heard of his conversion already.) His book is called "There Is A God" and it outlines the evidence he saw for the existence of a deity. If you like intellectual exercises, you will read this.

By default if I don't have any evidence for something, i assume it doesn't exist.

It's really just no reason to believe for me. Evidence would be a reason for me to believe. I'm on the "probably no supernatural" side of the fence, if that helps.

The argument from design has been destroyed by theists and atheists, at the Dover trail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

The cosmological argument- what would this be

The argument from morality isn't a scientific argument

Sure if he came out and said "here I am, god.  And I am going to produce a miracle to prove it".  He then proceeds to remove AIDS and all cancer from the earth and they are never seen again.  or Removes every gun from the face of the earth.  or replaces the ozone layer.  or makes Jurassic park real.

The argument is simple of course. All things need a cause, infinite regress is impossible, a first cause is necessary. Seems pretty solid at first blush, but in reality the situation is anything but simple, and genuine understanding of the validity or lack thereof requires a great deal of knowledge in Newtonian mechanics, field equations, Relativity, Quantum mechanics, cosmology and physical causality. The issue is anything but simple, indeed, we find the argument relies on a slew of intuitive understandings of physics that date back to issues with Zeno, which cannot be trusted, and certainly cannot be trusted to provide us with proof of God.    To understand this whole argument, we really need to first understand the notion of causality. When we speak of cause we are speaking of a correlation between two events A and B where there is temporal sequence between such events that A may “cause” B. It is postulated that the observation of cause leads to an infinite regress, and this is paradoxical, hence the God solution being postulated, the primum movens. I shall come to the paradox of infinite regress in a moment, but first I want to point out that the Cosmological Argument and its many variants invariably set up a very, very insurmountable paradox in and of themselves. Therefore, to say it is coherent is only in the sense of “which paradox is less insurmountable” which is hardly a measure of coherency at all Those who have read Joseph Heller’s famous novel will know of what we call in logic a Catch-22. The idea behind it has been understood for quite some time, simply put: C=>(A^B) (A =>~B) (B =>~A) This is basic logic notation. Preconditions A and B are both necessary for outcome C, but if A, then B cannot occur, and conversely, if B, then A cannot occur, hence, C can never occur. In Joseph Heller’s book, the Catch-22 was that to leave the air force, you had to be insane and you had to request to leave. But if you are genuinely insane, there is no way you can request to leave, conversely, if you request to leave, there is no way you can be genuinely insane. So, you are stuck. It’s also known as a no-win situation. We have a similar situation here. There are two necessary preconditions that make God a necessary and coherent postulate that the Cosmological Argument may work.   A: Cause requires time (which there cannot be an infinite regress of) B: The universe (of which time is a physical component) was caused C: The Universe was caused by an entity outside of time  The a posteriori observation for the argument comes from the necessity of time for cause, such that infinite regress is impossible, the other postulation is that the universe was caused under the proposition that all things need a cause. This is a Catch-22. If causality requires time, then it is impossible that time was caused. If time was caused, then it we cannot speak of causality requiring time, therefore the Universe being caused by something outside of time cannot occur, because A cannot occur if B and nor can B occur if A. C (the outcome) cannot occur since it necessarily postulates that there cannot be an infinite regress of cause because cause requires time, without that proposition we could not speak of the necessity of the God being, because these are the grounds on which the Cosmological Argument is being propagated! We cannot reference regress without referencing time, ergo, we cannot reference regress of cause without referencing regress of time. Yet postulation B specifically states that it is necessary to postulate the Prime Mover on grounds that the universe of which time is a component was…caused. If this proposition were not true, the Primum Movens would not be a sensible proposition. But it cannot occur if A occurs, since A postulates the opposite and A cannot occur if it occurs, but both of these postulations are necessary for C (the outcome), being the universe being caused by an entity outside of time.   The paradox here is “cause of cause”. Cause, per se, requires time as a substrate (the idea of the “cause of time” is insurmountable, like “north of the north pole”. When we speak of cause we are speaking of a correlation between two events A and B where there is temporal sequence between such events that A may “cause” B. Hence, what precisely does it mean to say that an entity outside of time could be the cause of such an event as what is essentially the beginning of cause itself? Surely, we have set up a greatly insurmountable paradox. We cannot reference causality without referring to time, and hence the notion of an atemporal being as the cause of cause is inherently absurd. An atemporal being, by definition, cannot cause anything or indeed execute any action since both notions necessarily refer to the substrate of time in which they may occur. Furthermore, the notion is essentially appealing to “cause of cause” which is inherently absurd. How do we intend to reference causality by the invocation of an atemporal entity?’    Since this is philosophical raciocintation, I have a more scientific critique on hand. Be assured that I did not conjure it up ex ignorantium. I am trained in physics and cosmology.   

Please define what a miracle is, and explain how we could know that it is a supernatural event versus simply an unlikely natural event.

Simply by asking 'if you were to witness a miracle' presumes that we would already know it is a miracle. If we already know it's a miracle why would we call it anything else? I'm not being antagonistic, I am simply curious.

Here's my answer to 'what would make me believe in God': I don't know, but surely an omniscient God would know what evidence would be sufficient for me to believe, AND an omnipotent God would have the power to present this evidence to me, AND an omnibenevolent God would want to present this evidence to me. Since I've not seen convincing evidence, I conclude that such a God cannot exist.

But even better, I have a more concrete example for you. I would accept theistic belief if I was provided, out of thin air, with a book, addressed to me by name, which details things from my past experience which only I could know, and which predicts specific things which will happen in my upcoming life which never fail to come true. It doesn't have to be a complete life history, just a book full of my life's events. And having it appear before me out of thin air would pretty much seal the deal.

There, now this hypothetical God knows what would convince me, and I think it's a pretty reasonable request, since he allegedly did something similar for Muhammed. It wouldn't even require omniscience or omnipotence, only enough knowledge to know what's on the internet and incomplete but accurate predictions of the future, and enough power to materialize a book out of thin air. If such a god exists and cares whether I believe in him or not, then surely he could create this book.

That argument is called the argument from degree. It is completey meaningless. It's simply a bland assertion, the notion that there is some sort of necessary of "universal degree measure" against which all things are compared. The argument is literally a non sequitur the way the phrase is used in humour, no better than saying:

P: All ladders have a top rung

C: Therefore, God exists.

The claim is completely meaningless and utterly inarticulable. It's also impossible to maintain because to fill such a requsite would entail that such a being be the maxima of certain properties that it does not have but against which we do employ different judgements of degree, such as with physical properties. If it did not have such properties, it could be referred to as the supposed maxima in any sense. We judge different things relative to other things in context-relative judgments and situations. The leap from this notion to a universal degree indicator is complete gibberish.We use relative comparisons in context relative judgement senses. If a ship was the size of an island, it would be extremely large relative to other ships. If a planet was the size of an island, it would be extremely small relative to other planets. The notion of a universal maxima for properties against which we judge degree makes no sense because judgements of degree are context relative. To propogate the argument would require you hold two contradictory notions simultaneously. You'd have to assert that this being constitutes the maxima for all context-relative judgements, which would be meaningless as you'd basically have infinity contradictory notions. But if you tried to argue that it still constituted a maxima of degree without trying to argue that it is the perfect measure for all context-relative judgements (such as the largest ship, the smallest plane, the best athlete, the worst eyesight, etc ad infinitum) then you'd be undermining your own premise that a universal measure of all things is necessary, let alone coherent, because you are admitting that measurements of degree of any kind are context-relative judgements. For this reason, the "argument from degree" for God is meaningless.

Scientific thought really deals in probability. It's improbable that there is a supernatural world. Gods would be of the improbable supernatural world, as would many other immaterial things like unicorns, leprechans, or the number foozwazzle.

No, because the natural order of things continues. A miracle would be an interruption of that natural order. New evidence of the world working differently would change that, but that's not exactly a guaranteed eventuality.

This is just sort of a statement with a built-in conclusion that doesn't follow. "If Zeus exists, then he is defined as that of which no higher can be thought."

It's not really an argument for Zeus. In fact, it's not really an argument. You don't follow it up. Let's try something else.

Besides, if God is the highest thing, then is God some unit of measurement? I'm sure that's not where you're going with that, it's just that it's confusing as a statement.

Can you please give me a list of why you don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, faeries, unicorns, etc? If you can provide the details of why you don't "believe" in these entities, cross out the aforementioned names, replace them with "god" and you will have the answer to your question.

Do you also refrain from actively believing in the nonexistence of flying walruses?

Indeed I do, Will. I believe that I exist. Everything else might be bullshit. I interact with the world I perceive around me, but make no assumptions or assertions that my perceptions might not be wrong.

I guess you mean philisophically, right? I mean, for practical purposes, you don't walk around saying, "will this car key actually open my car?" and then pass out in shock when it actually does.

I can see having an open mind to weird claims like, let's say, in 2012 the world will revert to Super Mario Brothers, and we'll all have to survive by collecting coins and throwing turtle shells. But to consider them all simultaneously as equally likely is a bit daunting. Please understand, I'm not accusing you of that really, but probability-wise, you figger there are magical creatures?

Right, now I assume that you have covered everything that you mean to (although by all means add more comments if you wish) I will make a bullet point list of everything you have said and attempt to respond to it over the next couple of months. I don't intend to cover each point in a day, it will take some time debating and dare I say it, probably refining my own opinions.

Sorry I haven't posted a while, my non-forum life came a-calling.

By the way, I don't think your arguments about the existence of faeries, etc have any relevance to my arguments. I am not claiming that the world was caused by Santa Claus, and the cosmological argument has nothing to do with unicorns, spaghetti monsters or any other sort of nonsense. There is a great deal more evidence for the existence of a Creator than there is for the existence of these creatures. As I have said, I will present this evidence in other threads. I will also mention this site to a theistic biologist friend of mine. He should raise some sparks in here.

Sorry I'm jumping in abit late here. I've tried to answer the orignal three arguments in a easy to understand way. I copied these from another project I'm working on, so they might not precisly adress the questions, but should give an idea.

1.     Argument from fine tuning/Improbability

Premises: The earth is just right for life. A bit more that way, it would too cold. A bit, more that way, too hot. It has just the right kind of atmosphere,  nice solar system with a asteroid belt that protects us from errant meteors that could hit the earth, etc. Or just look at us. See how complex the eye is. That couldn’t have just happened.

Problem: This doesn’t seem as amazing when you realize there are billions of planets, around billions of stars. Given the astronomical numbers worked with here, it isn’t that unlikely one would have the right conditions for life to appear. In fact, the universe speaks against intelligent design. So many galaxies and dead planets, so one can have life? It resembles far more the result one would get from an event such as the Big Bang.

The earth itself does not seem so intelligently designed. 70% of it is water, not much good for us non-gilled humans. Of the remaining land, much is in-hospitable dessert or ice land.  Why would god give us one planet in the whole universe and make most of it useless?

It is the same if we look at the eye. Yes, it is very unlikely it just appeared. Remember to factor in  few million years though, and it’s not so unbelievable that it manage to work it’s way here. If it was intelligently designed, why do so many people need glasses, and why are eyes so sensitive and easy to injure?

    How can you be moral without god?

Premises: It is impossible to be moral wothout god, the bible is the ultimate source of morality.

Problem: This is very insulting to the atheist, and completely baseless. First you have to accept the bible is the source of morality. There is no reason to believe anything in it is true, and do you really want to live by a book that has this:

Killing innocent babies-Exodus 12:29

You must kill your child if they disobey you-Exodus 21:15

Beat your slave, just make sure he doesn’t die! Exodus 21:20-21

They complete destruction of peoples, including infants, women, and animals. 1 Samuel 15:2-3

Giving your daughter away to her cousin in payment for his killing someone. Joshua 15:16-17

Condones child sacrifice. Judges 11:29-40

Sell your clothes to buy swords. Luke 22:36

Less than 1% of America’s prison population is atheist. Even if those numbers are somehow skewed, there are still a lot more christians than atheists in prison. Obviously, there are a lot more christians than atheists in every facet of American life, but should there be any in prison in the first place if they have the moral high ground?

The buckle of the Bible Belt has extremely high levels of teen pregnancy, violence, and illiteracy. Why if christians are so much better?

1.     Watchmaker Argument

Premises: If you were walking along and found a watch, you would note it’s complexity and conclude someone had designed it. It is the same with the natural world. Everything needs a creator.

Problem: Watches are designed. We know this because we can go to the watch factory and talk to the designer, and see the plans and processed for it. I’ve yet to see anyone do this with the universes’ supposed creator. Watches are non-organic things, and therefore couldn’t naturally evolve. Of course you wouldn’t think it just grew there. You might with a plant though. It is interesting to note that while this is n argument against evolution, watches evolve in their own way. The complex digital watch you found started as a simple sundial. In using this argument, the creationist must give credence to evolution.

This boils down to everything created needs a creator. The thing here is, who created god?

If nothing, then everything, including the world, does not need a creator. There is no reason to believe creationism.

If something, then god is not the universe’s creator. There is no reason to believe creationism.

That's a sad list. Especially when those are all things you could look up on the internet and pretend to know.

I want a biologist to come on and make the case that Jesus was a dinosaur. Y'know, a fresh perspective.

And lo, when Jesus was among the Hettanites, he did proclaim, "RAAAAARRRAGHARAGHARRAAAAAAAH!"

Let me point out a couple of things about your assertion, above:

There are exactly two possibilities:

1 - That a God that Created, or is Creating the Universe exists

or,

2 - That a God that Created, or is Creating the Universe does not exist.

In EITHER case, the Universe remains THE SAME.   So, you cannot logically conclude that the absence of violations of the physical laws of the Universe (miracles) supports your notion that there is no God.

Also, consider that a God that Created the Universe COULD exist and simply not care whether, or not, you believe in it.  And, any being capable of Creating the Universe would have well-thought out reasons for everything being the way it is - reasons that trump any desire for evidence of His existence on your part.

Furthermore, even if a being came to you and did as you suggest (He then proceeds to remove AIDS and all cancer from the earth and they are never seen again), that is still not conclusive evidence that that being is God, Creator of the Universe.  He could simply be an extremely advanced being with technology beyond our comprehension - and, a LIAR by stating that He is "God, Creator of the Universe."

I only point these things out to you so that you might reconsider your criteria for the acceptance of the existence of a God that has Created, or IS Creating the Universe.  I'm not trying to "sell" you on God - I'm only trying to get you to reconsider your notions of what would constitute evidence of such a being.

Ultimately, this implies that belief in God will ALWAYS be a simple choice, and not based on empirical evidence.  It is merely a chosen perspective and dependent on the tenability of the definition of God you are employing.  And, for ANY God to be tenable, its characteristics MUST NECESSARILY be entirely consistent with the way things really are.  After all, we ARE talking about God, Creator of the Universe, here.

I mean that, to take your example, while I expect the key will unlock the car, if it has appeared to do so in the past, I cannot assert knowledge that it will. I'd be surprised if it didn't work, but I can't know that such won't happen.

Do I consider the 'weird claims' all simultaneously equally likely? Of course not. I interact with the universe that I perceive. I can't interact with anything else, after all... and just like things like 'I could die in the next moment'... I could have a heart attack, I could get hit by a car, a plane could crash on me... like all of these things are possible, I acknowledge the possibility that all that I know could be wrong... but I continue to interact with the universe that I perceive, on the basis of what I perceive. To do otherwise... that way lies madness. But ultimately, I'm forced to admit: I simply don't know. Are there magical creatures? I don't expect them to be found, but in the end, I don't know.

On a side note, since you referenced the Long Count scenario... on December 21, 2012, the 'end of the world' according to the Long Count doomsdayers, a friend of mine turns 43. I have been poking at him over this, saying things like 'Oh, fine, you get done being 42, the Ultimate Answer of Life, the Universe, and Everything... and the world ends' and '43... Number of the Bush!'. And it amuses me greatly.