Evidence for atheism

[robvalue]

I apologize if this is echoing stuff which is already over the forum, but it is therapeutic for me to get it out of my head and out into the ether. If so, just ignore me and move on

I have watched an awful lot of videos in the last few months about religious debates. I see the same "arguments" from theists over and over, and of course most atheists agree they are poor at best. (I recently watched Eric Hovind for the first time, and I knew it would be bad, but I had no idea how low the tactics have become.)

One of the questions I hear the most occurs because the atheists ask for evidence. Where is the evidence for your god? Instead of answering, because there is no evidence, they deflect. They say "well let me ask you a question." And a lot of the time it will be, "Well where is your evidence that there isn't a god?"

Anyone who understands logic will know that it is generally impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. However, it is possible to prove something doesn't exist if its existence implies a contradiction. (You'll recognize that as reductio ad absurdum, proof by contradiction.)

For one thing, if there is evidence for god, you don't need faith. And faith appears to be required. So there can't be evidence and faith.

So now, it depends on what someone is defining as god. This is a huge problem, since you will most likely get a different definition from everyone, even those of the same sect of the same religion. A god can be almost anything. If you just defined a god as "something more powerful than us, more knowing than us and more just than us" then I would concede that such a thing may well exist. I would see no reason to call that a god though, that could be life on another planet.

But usually, you get at least some of the following: omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. I will refer to the christian god, but this argument can probably be used against other gods.

If there is a claim of omnibenevolence (being always and entirely good) it is extremely easy to provide evidence to prove this is wrong. Here, from the bible:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
—Isaiah 45:7

He creates evil. Evil is not good. Done. The only way to refute this is to say that the bible is wrong. The bible does not accurately describe the god of the bible (huh...) So, in that case, the christian god does exist, but the bible is rubbish. I'd be perfectly happy with that conclusion as the only available one for believers. (This is far, far from the only verse which points to the same conclusion.)

But if you add the claims that god is omniscient and omnipotent, then this contradicts him being omnibenevolent. This can be shown in a huge number of ways. A simple example:

I suffer. Suffering is not good. God knows I am suffering and that I would rather not be suffering. God could remove my suffering but he does not. So that means he either can't or won't remove it. If god has set things up so that something positive comes out of the suffering, then he could change things that the positive thing happens anyway but without me suffering.

That's just one of a huge number. Well here's another:

God knows everything. God knows the future. God knows everything I'm going to do for the rest of my life and whether or not I'll be sent to hell. Therefor I have no free will, and I will be judged based on actions beyond my control. I cannot choose to do something that god knows I will not do. This is not omnibenevolant. It's in fact some sort of fucked up sick shit.

The only retreats left from this are

(a) To try and say that god is allowed to contradict himself. But then you cannot define anything about him at all, because he can also be the opposite of whatever you say. Or something totally different

(b) To say that god is omni-everything within the scope of what is logically possible. Well, that's not omni is it. And it's just plain stupid, and shows what a ridiculous arbitrary definition you are trying to pull out of thin air in the first place.

Either of these retreats are entirely pathetic and childish, and an attempt to just say that their god is unfalsifiable. If that's the case, stop asking us for evidence because you have said it is unfalsifiable. To hold unfalsifiable, impossible and arbitrary beliefs and claim that to be a good thing can only be the result of gullibility or willful ignorance. A childish way of not letting go of fairy tails, which affects everything you do, and which then affects everyone around you through your actions.

Every other fairy tail is let go of at some point during childhood development (santa claus, tooth fairy, whatever). But for some reason this one, which is in fact the most absurd of any of them (not even internally consistent) lingers on. And it's not just a nice idea, which would be fine, but it's actually used to make decisions.

As an interesting point, I watched the video below last night. It's awesome and I'd recommend it to any atheist, and any theist who cares whether their beliefs are true. The funny thing is, by the end of it, I was starting to feel a kind of elation, a coming together, a sense of community and being part of an atheist experience, a joyous sense of something wonderful that appeared to be more than the sum of its parts. This is especially weird as I was watching it alone, and felt this community just with the speaker and the crowd. It is so easy to see how such a feeling can be attributed to religion. The human mind is brilliant, but also very vulnerable to deception.

The ultimate irony is this: the majority of people have been outwitted by a god that cannot logically exist. So the majority of people have been outwitted by nothing at all. They spend their lives worshipping nothing, caring about what nothing thinks, and trying to get other people to believe in nothing. For an intelligent species, we sure are really stupid.

Thanks very much for reading

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dup6xkvj1S0

---

As this is my ranting thread, I want to add this hilarious video which demonstrates the ridiculousness of christianity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oymv19jyeY8

[Mister Agenda]

That they don't have a single good argument (one that stands up to reasonable scrutiny) on their side is evidence that atheism is the more logical position.

[robvalue]

That too

That's why I see the deflection so often, they often won't answer a direct question, but just go off on some irrelevancy. Just like a politician.

If there was a god and some way of proving it (a) we'd have seen the evidence by now and (b) they wouldn't have to use ridiculous logical and semantic contortions to get there. I wonder, are they trying to convince us, or themselves?

[Chad32]

If anyone asked me where my evidence was that Yahweh didn't exist, I'd tell him or her that I don't have the kind of time to try to disprove every deity that anyone ever thought existed. I don't have to prove Vishnu doesn't exist. I just don't believe he does.

[Madness20]

For sure there's alot of arbitrary definitions of god that might be refutable, but that doesn't mean that refutal of arbitrary definitions trully refutes the possibility of existence.
The thing is, there are very compelling sets of reasoning to believe on an eternal and creating existence that serves as a cosmological hypothesis to explain the universe. If our logic is absolute, then there's actually not really any other concievable definition of what created us. Personification of that structure, is a whole different plot and set of arguments that are obviously open to human subjectivity.

[Exian]

I watched a video yesterday from a YEC claiming that it was possible for "pre flood man" to co-exist with dinosaurs because the oxygen concentration of Earth's atmosphere was higher, which made humans much bigger and live longer. He then held up an artist's rendition of a man standing eye-to-eye with some unidentified dinosaur.

So not only were humans as tall as dinosaurs, but all dinosaurs were the same height.

He then claimed that if we got in a fight with a dinosaur, they wouldn't automatically win because we were bigger and stronger. In my lifetime I've owned an iguana and raised chickens and roosters. Both of them kicked my ass, and I'm a lot bigger. (The story of my battle with an angry rooster is for another time, suffice it to say they are tough and scary)

He then claimed that the lochness monster was real and referred to it as a "water dinosaur". He held up another artist's rendition as proof.

[Minimalist]

The thing is, there are very compelling sets of reasoning to believe on an eternal and creating existence that serves as a cosmological hypothesis to explain the universe.

We are not interested in "reasoning." We want evidence.

"Reasoning" is a euphemism for conning yourself.

[Angrboda]

I haven't read the whole thing, but this stuck out.

If there is a claim of omnibenevolence (being always and entirely good) it is extremely easy to provide evidence to prove this is wrong. Here, from the bible:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
—Isaiah 45:7

Question: "Why does Isaiah 45:7 say that God created evil?"

Answer: Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version reads, “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” How does Isaiah 45:7 agree with the view that God did not create evil? There are two key facts that need to be considered. (1) The word translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery.” Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: “disaster” (NIV, HCSB), “calamity” (NKJV, NAS, ESV), and “woe” (NRSV). The Hebrew word can refer to moral evil, and often does have this meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, due to the diversity of possible definitions, it is unwise to assume that “I create evil” in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence.

(2) The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Isaiah-45-7....z3ELMxidPC

[Jenny A]

For sure there's alot of arbitrary definitions of god that might be refutable, but that doesn't mean that refutal of arbitrary definitions trully refutes the possibility of existence.
The thing is, there are very compelling sets of reasoning to believe on an eternal and creating existence that serves as a cosmological hypothesis to explain the universe. If our logic is absolute, then there's actually not really any other concievable definition of what created us. Personification of that structure, is a whole different plot and set of arguments that are obviously open to human subjectivity.

emphasis mine

Really? Let's hear those "compelling sets of reasoning," by which I think you might mean logical proofs, but who knows?

And what would make a "eternal and creating existence" (whatever that might be) relevant? Would presuming its eternal existence add to our understanding of how the universe works? Would this hypothesis have any predictive application? Or is it just another label to put on what we don't know?

[downbeatplumb]

"Any idea that be proposed without evidence can dismissed without evidence"...said someone. My google foo is weak.