What are the best arguments for Atheism?

[Orthodox]

Hello my name is Orthodox and I am not challenging the atheistic world to a one on one-million fist fight (although I do look forward to some healthy debating). I am simply interested, as a Christian, as to what the average atheist claims as their PRIMARY reason for their disbelief in christianity.

It seems to me that some atheists call Christianity too tall and some call it too short. Some call it too fat and some call it too skinny. Is there any primary logical reason for it's supposed fallacy?

Please be assured that unlike other Christians on this forum I don't deliberatly use circular reasoning to try and prove my point. I use the bible to discover what God is supposed to be like and use reason to demonstrate this. I am not just looking for a debate though, I also want to understand the rational behind popular atheism more.

Anyway, look forward to hearing from you.

 

[Pah]

Hello my name is Orthodox and I am not challenging the atheistic world to a one on one-million fist fight (although I do look forward to some healthy debating). I am simply interested, as a Christian, as to what the average atheist claims as their PRIMARY reason for their disbelief in christianity.

The primary reason an Atheist goes not beieve in God is because the Existence of God has never been shown to be true. This extrodinary thing requires extrodinary proof and none is forthcoming.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If you want to understand why atheists are not Christian, you should ask yourself "why am I not Muslim?" The answer may be surprising.

 

[LeaderNotFollower]

Orthodox,

I very worthy question. You mentioned a disbelief in Christianity. The case is not that we do not follow Christianity, but that we do not follow any religion. The word Atheism, in fact, means a lack of theism, or a lack religion.

Although all Atheists have different opinions and reasons for their disbelief in God, I can relay my own to you. Pah is correct in saying that there is no evidence to prove a God exists. This is a big factor, but other things come into play as well. If you are familiar with theodicy, this also contributes to my disbelief. Theodicy, or lack there of, is the justification of pain and suffering, more or less, in the world, and how God allows it. Simply, why do things like cancer, famine, natural disasters, etc. exist if God is an all-loving character? This I can not justify for myself, but it provides for a very interesting topic if you want to look it up on the internet.

It also doesn't help that religion, and specifically Christianity, has had a hand in almost every war that has taken place on this planet in some way or another:
Iraq - stop funamentalist Islamic views (and in effect, spread Christianity)
Afganistan - same
Vietnam - stop communism (stop a lack of religion)
Cold War - same
WWII - stop fascism (Christians don't like fascists)

The church can be pretty ruthless when they want something. They have even gone to the extent of unjustifiable murder to stop their enemies. The Crusades, Witch hunts, the Spanish Inquisition. These were actual lies made up by the church.

I also get turned off by people who will come up and tell me that they have The answer and that whatever I believe is incorrect. They can not possibly know who is correct. I do not know who is correct either. I can only base my beliefs on my environment.

But I think the main reason I don't believe in God is because it just doesn't make sence. The bible, we know, was written by men. Many historical church teachings (i.e. flat earth, geocentricity, creation) have been proven wrong by science. Because science gives me direct answers, and religion does not, I chose the one that gives me certifiable, proven answers. The Greeks believed in many Gods, but most people do not follow this belief anymore. How can you be sure that in the years to come, people will stop believing in the one God, just as people have stopped beliving in the many gods of the Greek's time? I truly believe that if religion ceased to exist, this world would be a peaceful place.

Now please do not take my comments on the offence. I use this site purely for learning about things I don't know, and relaying information that I do know. I would enjoy hearing your response.

 

[Orthodox]

Leadernotfollower,

Don't worry. I rarely take offence to things.

Anyway, the reason I asked the question, "why do atheists disbelieve in Christianity" (or something to that accord) is because as an ex-atheist and now a Christian I know most about those two worldviews. An atheist must disbelieve in Christianity (as well as the other religions) in order to be an atheist. So, I just asked in order to hear what take others have on my beliefs (apart from just thinking them plain wrong!).

From a lot of atheists I have heard the complaint that Christians don't behave like they believe in God or have been saved from sin. Do you think there could be confusion between judging the messenger and the message? Just like saying "I won't read the post because the postman is dirty" (Barker, 2004).

It appears that science is believed to be in opposition with religion. But can science disprove God’s existence? In my opinion it actually verifies his very needful existence. In such things as the need for a First Cause, the existence of transcendental laws and supportable ontological arguments science holds many evidences for God.

Scientific laws such as the second law of thermodynamics (IE. entropy) stand in objection to the atheistic claim that the universe is eternal. To my understanding an atheist must believe that the universe is eternal because otherwise something created it and that reeks of the supernatural. Many scientific facts contradict this belief in an eternal universe.

Stephen Hawking, considered by many as the greatest physicist/mathematician since Einstein, wrote: “The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron…. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”(Stephen Hawking, A brief history of Time, 125)

Science, it seems, isn't always a sword in the hand of atheists.

Anyway, what do you think.

Orthodox

 

[chamberlain]

Hey all

I am a christian myself but i would like to think that my faith isn't blind.

First of all lets fix up a few things:
1. The iraq war was started by saddam hussein when INVADED another nation. it wasnt started by a syndicate of militant christians who wanted to spread there religion
2. ww2 vietnam and all the others (-cold war) were also instigated by someone invading another innocent nation. and it isnt true to say that any of these wars were motivated by anything Jesus taught us.
3. i will not deny that salem, the inquisition and less so the crusades were evil scenarios that were started by christians HOWEVER they also do not align with the teachings of Jesus or Gods commands in the old testiment. These scenarios are just as bad as christians picketing against homosexuals today but these occurances do not detract from Gods reality. Its just that christians arent always the best messengers. Heres an analogy: if you won the lotto, and a scruffy, smelly, cussing, diseased postman came to deliver the check for $1million to you would you turn down the check because of who was delivering it? in the same way, christians who are human and do wrong do not make God exist any less. "reject the messenger not the message!" and i should know because i am a christian and God does not disappear when i sin!
4. Suffering doesn't detract from Gods exixtance either in fact most suffering is caused by people not God. So it isnt God that isnt being all-loving its the human race that isnt being all-loving!
Suffering caused by natural events (earthquakes) are all by-products of mans choice to defy God. To defy God and live in sin gives satan power in this world and thats when all things go wrong. So firstly dont balme God for what men do to eachother and dont say he isnt all loving because of the pain satan causes in our world.
5. Now on to making sense. God makes perfect sense, do you really wish to ascribe our existance and that of our universe to chance? Common sense sure wouldn't. I believe that our universe is to intricate and complicated to attribute to this minute chance. Besides the universe is far to volatile to hold itself together by chance. Look at the effect of a small amount of a few chemicals in a nuke? or that of fusion in the sun and stars if this wasnt balanced by a higher being or creator then the statistics that science give us would show that it all would have gone ugly billions of years ago, let alone be capable of supporting (and evolving)life.
In fact a great deal of scientist that work in this field are strong christians.

you seeLeaderNotFollower, i will never be able to convince you or anyone to 100% on the existance of God and i openly admit that noone else can either although if you take in all the evidence thats were common sense prevails. Besides if i believe in God and believe i am saved by Jesus Christ and it turns out to be true what have i gained? everything! if it isnt true what have i lost nothing. if i follow atheism and christianity ends up being true what hav i lost? everything.
I dont want to offend anyone here just as i am not offended by others disagreement with my beliefs but please respond LeaderNotFollower :talk:

chamberlain

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think if "God" is just a word that represents the explainations for everything we do not yet have explainations for, then I "believe" in God. If the properties of God can be discovered scientifically, then I "believe" in God (for example, it's not enough to just say God keeps enough oxygen in the atmosphere for us....how, exactly, does this happen?)

However, normally, God is described as a being with all sorts of other characteristics that define Him--sentience, consciousness, emotions, wants/desires, etc. etc. It's just like the ancient Greeks trying to explain how in the world lightning comes about....yes, "something" does cause lightning, but the Greeks who believed that Zeus caused lightning were completely off.

Atheism claims the universe is eternal, or lots of atheists claim this? I thought that according to modern science we live in an 'open universe' and the galaxies are traveling away from the big bang forever.

"Something" may very well have created the universe (ever heard of string theory?) But I doubt it is the same something that many theists worship (or indeed, that it has "wishes" at all, and one of them is to be worshipped). God's existence ultimately depends on your definition of 'god'. I doubt sub atomic particles or super strings ever manifest themselves as flaming bushes and create stone tablets from nothing to give to a select group of homo sapiens on the planet Earth in the Milky Way galaxy. Just like the ancient Greeks, we must not be too hasty in assigning human attributes and mythology to our proposed explainations of things (of course, before actually finding a plausible explaination scientifically, the best explainations we can come up with involve what is familiar to us--our own attributes...this is unfortunate, as it derails objective efforts to find these explainations).

The fact that Christians rarely follow their own message of peace and love is not why I became an atheist at all, though I was always disheartened by it when I was Christian. The reason I do not believe in the religious texts of Christianity is the same reason (probably) you do not believe in the religious texts/moral codes of the Egyptians. Socrates really knew what he was talking about when he said "know thyself"...you should ask yourself, honestly, if you had lived in another part of the world where another religion besides Christianity was dominant, would you have become Christian? Is it possible that the redeeming qualities of religion are not in its "truth" but are and always have been its ability to unify people, to get people to act morally, and to provide empowerment, hope, comfort, and security in a world that is often full of dispair and confusion? I personally think so.

Science cannot disprove the existence of anything to anyone who wants to beleive it exists. No one has ever "disproved" the existence of mermaids, and in fact no one has ever "disproved" that Zeus or any of the other Greek gods exist. However, because (most) people do not have an emotional/intellectual attachment to mermaids (they don't serve to help explain the world to us and there is little psychological reward for believing in them) so it is easier for people to weigh the evidence objectively and realize the existence of mermaids is unlikely at best.

 

[chamberlain]

God is a creator of our universe. He isn't that which we can't explain. And is love something you can explain using scientific reason. If you must use science to relate to everything you are going to live a sadly hollow life.

Now plants dont grow where there is no light. In the same way if i lived in a another culture i may not hear about christianity at all. In this case I would not have a chance to respond to it. However
missionaries of the christian faith are usually welcomed into other cultures where their message is lapped up and peoples lives are changed.

The language you use makes you sound deep and meaningful (and im sure you think you are) yet are you really thinking about what you are saying?

 

[Orthodox]

Atheism claims the universe is eternal, or lots of atheists claim this? I thought that according to modern science we live in an 'open universe' and the galaxies are traveling away from the big bang forever.

From the study of the "radiation echo" it does appear that the universe was created in the big bang. The point is the universe must have a beginning from something other than itself. The first principle of Causality says that anything finite must have a beginning. It cannot have existed in some form or another (IE. big bang, big crunch continuum) for eternity. That is scientifically and mathematically inconsistent. It must have had a beginning. A beginning speaks of a creator.

Also, the "salvation of the Heathens" (doctrinal name - I don't mean to sound self-righteous) is a strangly un-covered topic in the Bible. My personal opinion is that those who have not heard are judged on the basis of what they do with what they get. There is an intrinsic morallity to people which can possibly, if followed roughly, demonstrate faith in the God they have never heard of. Comes down to personal reaction to whatever has been recieved. Why, is it not mentioned in ther Bible? Possibly because God knows most of all what Christians are good at; behaving badly. If he had said "heathens can go to heaven on the basis of the faith they hold in a higher power and the recognition they give to their sinful nature. Even they are ignorant of the gospel." If God had said this there would never have been much of a push on evangelization and Cortez's slaughter of the native southAmericans (because they were "saved by their ignorance") would have been the standard colonial procedure.

Orthodox

 

[Fra.Morelia]

Hrm, I tend to view 'God' as Sprinkles said, that which we do not understand. I view it as the wheel that turns, the clockwork mechanism, chaos and potentiality. Not an old dude with lightning bolts and on a permanant power trip.
and

There is an intrinsic morallity to people which can possibly, if followed roughly, demonstrate faith in the God they have never heard of.
this is silly.
they are following their vision of the divine. your god does not factor into their existence. believe it or not, other cultures have values based on their own views, and may not be simply waiting for someone to come and show them the true way.

 

[Alaric]

Orthodox,
I usually split my atheism arguments into three parts:

Logic & comprehension: probably a better name for this, but this deals with the fact that most religion seem to contradict themselves, or just don't make any sense. This is the whole debate about what God really is, is omnipotence possible, why do Biblical passages contradict themselves, and so on. A lot of semantics, but the point is that nobody really knows what it is they're worshipping. People will solidly believe in something that is both invisible and pink until someone finally gets in through their skull that invisibility and pinkness are mutually exclusive. Then they say 'But anything is possible for God', then I say 'but then you don't comprehend what it is you're worshipping' and so on.

Rationality: This is the common sense part - Occams razor. Religions are just ancient ignorant tribes' ways of giving their people a sense of identity, of explaining nature, of anthropomorphising their ideals, of trying to understand and control their destiny, and so forth. And a lot has to do with priests trying to gain control over people by being the ones with the only true insight into the ways of the gods, etc. Natural science doesn't support religions, social sciences just explain why we have them and why we developed the God we have... in short, if you believe in something supernatural, you probably just have some sad emotional need, or are just plain gullible or not too bright. You know - Arabs don't believe in Islam, and Europeans don't believe in Christianity, because their brain make-up is somehow fundamentally different; they believe because their parents believe, and people are generally not too good at thinking for themselves. They always need to justify their parents' beliefs. Given the facts, if you choose to believe in angels and floods and 6000 year old earths, you have to be insane. And so on.

Morality: This is the fun part. I like to say that only atheists can be truly moral, and any worship of, or obedience to, God should be considered a betrayal of your fellow man. Of course I don't think people are evil because they do what God says, but that's just because they are good at turning God's message into something they can admire, rather than just taking it for what it is. The argument goes that morality is about how we treat other people - the 'right' morality for each individual follows Kant's Categorical Imperative. Because everyone is forced to admit that no matter how sure they think they are about the existence of God they cannot prove His existence, then everyone must develop a set of laws that respects everyone's right to believe in what they think is most correct. Their actions, however, must also respect the rights of everyone else to live freely - so we end up with democracy, property laws etc. Meaning noone has the right to annoy anyone because they believe their God told them to, because otherwise anyone could claim the same, and chaos would ensue. So, morality must necessarily be independent of God, and depend entirely on your fellow man, given his natural state of ignorance. Any action done because God commanded it is therefore immoral. And any command by God to act, and any reward or punishment by God, is likewise immoral.

 

[Pah]

People will solidly believe in something that is both invisible and pink until someone finally gets in through their skull that invisibility and pinkness are mutually exclusive. Then they say 'But anything is possible for God', then I say 'but then you don't comprehend what it is you're worshipping' and so on.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, in her holiness, is the perfect model for God.

 

[LeaderNotFollower]

"Do you think there could be confusion between judging the messenger and the message?"

The message I assume you are refering to is the one that Jesus relayed. My question is, Why did God wait ~6000 years to send this message down? Why did he not give it to the first humans of earth? How do we know that the Jews are not truly the 'chosen' people? How can we believe that Christianity is the true religion when the majority of the earth does not even give it merit?

As for your question, you are correct in saying that the messanger is to blame. But with such an important message, wouldn't you think God would entrust it to people that were a little more open minded to the root of the message. If God truly designed humans, why did he not instill in us an ability to understand his message and give us the ability to carry it out? As for original sin, I believe it was created by community leaders long ago to act as a policeman for the masses, as was the idea of hell and satan. Keep the masses scared, and they will continue to attend church and do as they are told. For some truly interesting debate, take a look at the Original Sin thread in the religious debate section.

Unfortunatly, I have studied very little of entropy, and I can not even begin to imagine the origins of the universe. If the universe is finite, and God did create it, did he use existing materials? If so, something else would have had to create these materials, in which case God could also be labeled as finite. If God created the materials, what was he doing before he decided to create a universe? Was he just sitting around waiting for the right time? Just something to think about.

Although I am not about to claim that I am more intelligent than Stephen Hawking, I think I can still disagree with him on issues. I believe that the earth, and life, did develope by chance. The earth took billions of years to fine-tune itself to be able to support life. Why hasn't God colonized other planets? Perhaps it is only because they have not fine-tuned themselves yet. Why would God even bother creating the other planets if they were just going to sit out in space and look pretty?

I do not disagree that science and religion can exist harmoniously, but because I do not participate in religion, science is the only option.

Now on to chamberlain. As for the wars I mentioned, i was just using them as an example of conflics in which America (being predominantly Christian) took part. I did not presume that they were caused by Christianity.

"Suffering doesn't detract from Gods exixtance either in fact most suffering is caused by people not God. So it isnt God that isnt being all-loving its the human race that isnt being all-loving! "

Are you saying that humans are the cause of cancers, diabetes, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, and also famine, poverty, etc? Surely an all-loving God could not let these atrocities devour his dearly loved creations. You say these are punishments for original sin, but I did not commit the original sin, nor did you, or orthodox, or anyone else on this site, or anyone else on this planet. Adam and Eve (a loophole of a story in itself, a human race can not be created with one man and one woman) committed the original sin. Why is God still blaming us for it? And I would think that such a forgiving individual as God would be able to forget one little mistake that occured so long ago.

Now lets discuss satan. Occam's Razor tells us (yes I got this from 'Contact' but I think it's a good example) that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Now tell me, with common sense in mind, what you really think; that a big evil demon, who loves lie and deceit, lives in a burning, underworld where he will tourture you if you do not behave in life. Or that satan was just something your clergy told you so you would do what you were told and keep coming to church. Satan is as realistic to me as the easter bunny.

"do you really wish to ascribe our existance and that of our universe to chance?"

Actually, yes. I do ascribe our existance to chance. Billions and billions of years worth of trial and error, until the evolution of the university got our planet just right to be able to support water and an atmosphere, and so on. If you apply Occam's Razor here, the distinction of a simpler explanation is a little more difficult. But because the God explanation involves the supernatural, I will stick with the evolution explanation.

"Besides if i believe in God and believe i am saved by Jesus Christ and it turns out to be true what have i gained? everything! if it isnt true what have i lost nothing. if i follow atheism and christianity ends up being true what hav i lost? everything."

Jesus' teachings were not meant solely for Christians. I believe the world would truly be better if everyone followed Jesus' teachings. But, sadly, even Christians fail to keep faith when it isn't convenient. The golden rule, when applied to life, is not a religious experience, but a method of peace. I do not need to believe in God to follow the golden rule. If I led a truly respectable life, wouldn't God, in his infinate love and forgiveness, allow me into heaven, reguardless of whether I believed in him on earth? After all, humans are fallible. So in reguards to your statement, No, I don't believe I will loose everything if Christianity turns out to be correct. The truth is, no one will know who is correct until they die. So, I figure, while we are here on earth, lets just forget about religion and live in peace.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Pascal's wager doesn't make any sense to me. First of all, you can't choose what to believe--if you doubt the existence of the Easter Bunny, but you "choose" to beleive in him because it's a "good bet", you are simply lying to yourself. Secondly, even if you do beleive Jesus was a divine savior, you are still condemned to hell by a bunch of other religions, so no matter what you beleive you can never be "safe". If Christians turn out to be wrong, they burn in hell with the atheists, according to many religions.

Using the logic of Pascal' Wager, we should all believe in the invisible Pink Unicorn...after all, what have we got to lose? Sure you don't have to believe in Her....but do you really want to risk it?

"Like all religions, the Holy Religion of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both Logic and Faith. We have Faith that She is Pink; we Logically know that She is Invisible, because we can't see Her." -Unknown

 

[Ceridwen018]

And is love something you can explain using scientific reason. If you must use science to relate to everything you are going to live a sadly hollow life.

Yes, yes it is. I would advise that you not make judgements on a lifestyle that you have never personally tried. I use science to relate to everything, yet I still lead a very full life. I love passionately, and reap all of the rewards and sorrows from such emotions as you do, even though I recognize their true origin. In truth, dealing with emotions is made much easier when you can understand the scientific reasoning behind them. It's just a different way of interpreting things.

Personally, I don't see how anyone could be living a full life when it is dedicated to an invisible man in the sky who will kick the **** out of you if you don't pledge your undying allegiance to him.

Now plants dont grow where there is no light. In the same way if i lived in a another culture i may not hear about christianity at all. In this case I would not have a chance to respond to it. However
missionaries of the christian faith are usually welcomed into other cultures where their message is lapped up and peoples lives are changed.

Alright. Put yourself into this scenario for a moment: if tomorrow, Muslim missionaries showed up at your door and attempted to preach their doctrine to you, would you 'lap it up'? No, of course not. Neither would the Muslim accept the Christian missionary. When you analyze things a little further, you may recognize that Christian countries are generally rich and technologically advanced countries, and that the countries which are ministered to by the Christian faith are often 3rd world. Could not the people of these less fortunate countries be accpeting Jesus into their hearts in an attempt to transgress their meager surroundings? To get a peice of the action that other people of more influential countries see every day? Also, it's like a math whiz explaining a problem to a failing student: the whiz can say whatever he wants and it will be accepted, because he is respected as being more 'in the know'. All in all, it is not difficult to sway the disorganized and non-unified faith of those in poverty.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Orthodox,

So you are an ex-Atheist? That is very interesting. If you don't mind, could you share your story with us?

 

[tigrers99]

Every argument that the Atheists have put forth as to why they refuse to believe that God exists has been refuted many, many, many times. It all boils down to an emotional wall that they refuse to lower. It is a 'will' problem. Not a 'logical' problem.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Tigrers, you are sadly mistaken. Even most theists will tell you that no one can 'prove' the existence of God, so it is not simply a "will" problem, it is an evidence problem. Perhaps it is a "will" problem in the sense that it requires us to be willing to suspend the need for reasoning and evidence (and many Christians would agree with that statement, I am not saying it sarcastically).

chamberlain said:

The language you use makes you sound deep and meaningful (and im sure you think you are) yet are you really thinking about what you are saying?

I asked myself that same question years ago when I was a devout Protestant Christian.

 

[Orthodox]

Ceridwen,

Here is my story.

I went to church as a child and, like almost everyone else, I never really liked anything to do with God (except Christmas and Easter). I thought church was the dullest and least consequential ritual anyone was capable of being part of. I had my first serious doubts about God's existence when I was about 10. I just suddenly realised that it was not all that evident that God existed, and that if he never had existed I would be pretty much the exactly the same. (my parents were never really bible bashers so they weren't to troubled with my lack of belief).

When I was in high school I decided that I was much too clever to follow anything "blindly" and I just stopped going to church. I stopped liking anything to do with church and, along with my mates, just lived however I wanted to. I actually came to despise Christianity.

After highschool I went to the U.S.A as an exchange student. I was, through some cosmic fluke, put in a very expensive private school at no cost. This school was very god orientated. Even though many (perhaps most) of the "christians" behaved and acted just like me, some of them were different and this made an impression on me. I wanted to tear down their faith. When I looked for "holes" in Christian dogma didn't find any serious ones. I also found science to be remarkably unable to lay a hand on that 2000 year old Jewish rabbi from Nazareth. I found that Christianity was more sensible, provable and desirable than any other worldview. So, knowing when I was beaten, I swapped sides and am a lot less confused now.

I didn't really have an emotional reason for abandoning my Atheism. I just found it to be false.

Through reading such Christian authors as, C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, Philip Yancey, St Thomas Aquinas, St Augustine, L. Strobel I have come to see the sensibleness, provableness and desirability of the Christian Faith.

orthodox

 

[Gunnard]

Every argument that the Atheists have put forth as to why they refuse to believe that God exists has been refuted many, many, many times. It all boils down to an emotional wall that they refuse to lower. It is a 'will' problem. Not a 'logical' problem.

Yet atheists need the power of god to break down that wall.
Kind of a conundrum isn't it?