₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1,808,743 members, 3,555,397 topics. Date: Thursday, 25 May 2017 at 06:08 AM

A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) - Religion - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) (227923 Views)

Athiesm The "No God" Religion / Atheist State Your Reasons For Not Believing In God/Religion / Atheism: The “No-God” Religion (1) (2) (3) (4)

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) ... (10) (Reply) (Go Down)

A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 1:53pm On Jan 03, 2013
Hello there! this is a thread for all the best atheist arguments against religion/religious doctrines/God.


This is a thread for listing/explaining arguments and not a thread for
-theists and atheists to argue
-rebuttals to the atheist arguments
-insulting a particular theist or religion


You simply put your argument forward and explain it.


Here are the rules;
-Note the number of your argument. We will number arguments for easy reference
-Put the name or title of your argument in bold (eg the "pink unicorn argument" ) first and then explain it. (Title should be bold/font size 18)
-No rebuttals or counterargument. If you want to argue, please quote the argument and then make a new thread. The atheist will proceed to argue there
-No insults or vulgar words. Let us try to be civil in explaining our arguments.
-There will be a discussion thread to discuss flawed or similar arguments. Questions will also be answered there


Please, let's keep this thread clean and tidy.

3 Likes

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 1:54pm On Jan 03, 2013
[size=18pt]1) The fundamental atheist argument[/size]


Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of God(s)


The fundamental argument for atheism is that there is no evidence or proof for God. There is no solid or tangible evidence for God nor a logical argument for God. The existence of God is taken on faith and not by evidence.

-God can not be proven by science which is the main way we study and understand our universe or natural world. There is no theory of God
-There is no conclusive logical argument forthe existence of God. His/her existence is continuously debated.
-There is no comprehensive definition of God. There are many definitions for the same God as there are many gods. This is problematic if one is to ascertain the characteristics of God to judge if God exists or not.



[img]http://t.qkme.me/355t1j.jpg[/img]


[img]http://t.qkme.me/36j5ik.jpg[/img]

5 Likes

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 1:55pm On Jan 03, 2013
[size=18pt]2) The paradox of omnipotence[/size]


We agree that a "married bachelor" can not exist because it is contradictory and self-refuting. An omnipotent God is self-refuting and contradictory.


-Omnipotence is the ability to do all things. To have all abilities
-However, some abilities are contradictory to each other. or some actions negate each other
-To sleep means you are not awake, for instance. You cant be alseep and awake at the same time.


God has the ability to live for ever. Eternal life. However, that means that he can not die and he doesnt have the ability to kill himself



God has the ability to be everywhere. he is omnipresent. However, that means that he doesnt have the ability to leave a certain place or the ability to be absent.

1 Like

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 1:56pm On Jan 03, 2013
Speaking of judgement day and the threat of eternal torment in scaring people to believe God,

There is this argument for belief in God’s existence which is called Pascal’s Wager, named for Blaise Pascal who conceived it.

Pascal's wager states that

“God can’t be proved. But if God exists, the believer gains everything (goes to heaven) and the unbeliever loses everything (goes to hell). If God doesn’t exist, the believer loses nothing and the unbeliever gains nothing. There is therefore everything to gain and nothing to lose by believing in God.”
- Blaise Pascal





[size=18pt]3)DEBUNKING PASCAL'S WAGER[/size]



Pascal’s Wager has several faults.
1. The biggest problem is that it’s not a proof of any god’s existence; it’s just an argument for believing, not a proof of existence.It is purely a method of extorting the gullible thru fear. . nothing more than a scare tactics any religion can use to generate followers.

2. Like many other such arguments, it also fails to denote exactly which god it refers to. Pascal’s Wager could be applied to any god that offers rewards and punishments. Taken to the extreme, following the wager would necessitate betting on the god with the worst hell, so it could be avoided. It's impossible to know which god to worship, and which (perhaps jealous) gods to spurn. I doubt if many Christians would convert to Islam if the wager were presented by a Muslim who told them that Muslim Hell is worse than Christian Hell and Muslim Heaven is better than Christian Heaven.

3. Pascal’s Wager assumes that the chosen god doesn't mind people believing in him for explicitly selfish reasons. But religionists are in much danger as the atheists. Who knows, perhaps he actually prefers independent thinkers such as atheists, not cowardly subordinate followers. It would be quite possible for a true believer to discover on Judgment Day that the destination was not Heaven. Allah, in his infinitely mysterious ways, may have had other plans; and there would be no appeal or debate with an omnipotent being.

4. Another problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it wrongly assumes that the bet is only for non-existence vs existence of Christian god. Since the odds of the Islamic, Christian, Jewish or Hindu god co-existing as Almighty god are zero, the wager creates a false dilemma.

5. The wager even goes against the doctrine that many religions have where gambling is sinful. Note also that the existence of the wager (gambling) and the fact that so many people think that it's relevant to deliberate on the lack of actual evidence for God.

6. Pascal’s Wager also depends on the idea that you don’t lose much by believing. This has been false for many who have trusted in their god for help or guidance, instead of seeking reality-based solutions. People have unnecessarily fought, killed and died for their belief in their god. Boko haram problem in our country is an example of dangers of religion. Far too many have died because they (or their parents) chose prayer instead of medicine (e.g. Jehovah Witnesses will rather let their children die than allow blood transfusion ). Swords, bullets, poison, and poisonous snakes have killed many who thought that they were protected by their god etc etc etc.

7. Even without these more dramatic effects, believers often devote significant time, energy and money to worshipping their god. This could have been properly invested in worthwhile developmental pursuits both for the individual and for humanity as a whole. This probably explains why the least religious nations have been the most advanced nations on earth and vice versa. Nigeria, as deeply religious as we are is still one of the most corrupt nation on earth.

8. Beliefs in a god (and the often resultant ideas of divine punishment and reward) too often make people more willing to accept inequalities in this life, without trying to make things better for themselves. Low-paid factory workers and slaves were taught that their rewards were in the afterlife, so they should be meek and obedient in this life to ensure their (imaginary) rewards. Even the factory and slave owners could think that they were part of their god's divine plan, and thus deserved their earthly rewards.

9. God-belief has real expenses that can be large or destructive both to the individual and to the world e.g Islamic terrorism and boko haram, they sincerely believed they are doing god’s will by killing fellow human beings.

10. The last problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it completely ignores and even denigrates intellectual integrity and honesty; the wager assumes that people can believe something just because they want to. As an example, let’s talk about belief in Santa Claus. Don’t we have more respect for a child who figures out that Santa doesn’t exist, and says so, rather than continuing to lie so he can get more presents? It’s a sign of growing integrity and maturity for children to stop believing in Santa. Similarly, adults can give up belief in a god when they realize that there’s no real evidence for their god. Christians can quit being “sheep” or “children of god” and become intellectually honest.

11. The loss of intellectual integrity and honesty engendered by Pascal’s Wager gives some insight into how apparently rational people can behave so irrationally. By accepting the wager, they have (perhaps implicitly) given up these important traits.


In conclusion, I think that many people continue to believe in a god because it gives them comfort, not because god actually exists; it’s an emotional response. It allows them to pray to their god and think that they’re actually accomplishing something. It gives them feelings of structure and meaning in their lives, and makes them feel connected. It helps remove the fear of death and nonexistence that most of us experience after death, just exactly what we experience before our birth. Belief in the Christian god helps remove people’s fear of Christian Hell that has been pounded into their minds from childhood. Belief in a god also makes the world more black and white, less confusing, and easier to deal with. Likewise belief in the Islamic god helps remove people’s fear of Islamic Hell that has been pounded into their minds from childhood. Belief in a god also makes the world more black and white, less confusing, and easier to deal with.But, is this any actual proof for the existence of a god? Is comfort a good indicator of the truth of external reality? I don’t think that it is, any more than the reality that astrology is not true simply because people find comfort in it. The universe does not owe us comfort and meaning; we create them ourselves through our various religions.

“The fact that a believer believes he is happier than a skeptic/atheists is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man believes is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.”

Religions are like feel-good addictive drug. I think that addicts will do or think almost anything to continue getting their fix. Some people eventually see that freedom from religious addiction is an intellectually and emotionally healthy change, although withdrawal can be painful.

7 Likes

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 1:56pm On Jan 03, 2013
[size=18pt]4. The Paradox of omniscience[/size]


We agree that a "married bachelor" can not exist because it is contradictory and self-refuting. An omniscient God is self-refuting and contradictory.

-Omniscience means knowing all things



If God knows everything, then he can not forget because the moment he forgets, he doesn't know everything. However, if God cant forget, he then doesnt know how to remember or recollect. If he can't recollect. then there is something he doesn't know- he doesnt know how it feels to recollect or remember something.


[img]http://t.qkme.me/42ef.jpg[/img]

1 Like

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 2:09pm On Jan 03, 2013
[size=18pt]5) The Law Maker Argument against religious books[/size]


If we ask any lawyer today about law books, he or she will tell you that they mostly get obsolete after a year because amendments and new laws come into place. The reasons for these amendments are to keep up with advances in technology, to keep up with advances in human knowledge and to close loopholes.


Unfortunately, religion have holy books that have religious codes and are considered the laws of God. This is seen in religions like Christianity and Islam. This means that their holy books would have to be edited for modern times to be relevant. However, these religions claim that their holy books contain erternal truths (Chistianity) and that their holy book is complete (Islam). This creates a problem because we know for a fact that truth is based on evidence and knowledge which both change as time and society progress.


The problem is very simple; religious books like the Quran and Bible will continue to be outdated naturally, no matter how many times they are interpreted because laws by nature have to change with the advance of societies and technology or we will be looking at arnarchy from loopholes.


If the words/laws of an eternal being can not be eternal, what is the point? Why not focus on laws that work?
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 2:55pm On Jan 03, 2013
[size=18pt]6) A Problem of tragedy, evil and natural disasters[/size]


[size=14pt]Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus[/size]



A great question people ask when tragedy and natural disasters happen is where is God? Religious theists can not answer this question adequately as it provides a great problem with the theory of a "good and just" God.

-Why does God allow terrible things to happen to good people?
-Why does God allow innocent children to die of starvation in Africa?
-Why does God allow natural disasters like earthquakes to kill both sinners and innocent people indiscriminately?



There are four flawed religious answers to these questions


1) God gives man freewill. We shouldnt Judge God based on what man does with his freewill!
-A natural disaster has no freewill and there is nothing man can do with his freewill against an earthquake (except run/help survivors)
-An omniscient God can not give freewill. Such a God knows everything- what will happen and when it will happen- predetermination!

2) God is punishing the wicked
(Gays destroy society false argument grin)
-Worse things even happen to those people who worship him and innocent children.
-An earthquake doesnt care if you are good or bad.
-Such a God can not be just. Why not Judge people individually rather than kill indiscriminately with floods and disaters?

3)God is doing in for a greater good! We are not omnipotent and so we can't judge
-Really? God couldnt find a better way of achieving the greater good than to let children drown in a tsunami
-Greater good for who? The societies ravaged by earthquakes? The dead victims?


4) God is not involved in these tragedies!
-Erm, he impotent or selfish not to help.


Atheist debunking christians on Hurricanes and God

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3nqusrn4pg
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by tobechi74: 4:49pm On Jan 03, 2013
Y are u remixin d thread
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by cyrexx: 5:10pm On Jan 03, 2013
[size=18pt]7)The Argument from Locality[/size]

The Argument from Locality runs as follows: Every religion currently being practiced on this planet, as well as every past religion which no longer has followers, has a definite, discernible origin in time and space. Even if the exact beginnings of a religion are murky, that religion still originated in a definite area and in a definite time period.


However, I argue that any god or gods which existed and which desired to reveal themselves to humanity would not do this - they would not provide a revelation to only one culture, at one time, in one place. There are several good reasons to believe this, and if it holds, then any religion which did have only a single point of origin cannot possibly be true. In short: The fact that all religions originated in one specific culture, at one specific time and place, points strongly to their being the product of that culture, time and place - and not the product of divine revelation.

The Argument from Locality is a valid argument against religion for the following reasons:


1. Any deity which desired to be believed in would reveal itself to everyone, not just to a specific person, culture, race or nation.
There can be no doubt that any religion that had it right would be universal. Modern science has taught us that all humans are the same on fundamental genetic and cognitive levels and that race is a social construct as much as it is a biological one. In light of these facts, it is not rational to insist that a god - plainly not a creature of biology, with no special ties or allegiance to any subgroup of humanity - would select any single specific people or ethnicity to be its chosen. (It can hardly be a coincidence that every religion which claims God has a chosen people was founded by those who claimed they were the chosen people.) It therefore follows that any god which founded a religion would probably provide its initial revelation to multiple peoples - preferably scattered throughout time and space, to ensure as wide a distribution of followers as possible - or, failing that, the initial revelation would be given to one group of people with instructions to spread it to others. But there are other points, detailed below, which tell against the second possibility; and while the first possibility would be virtually indisputable evidence of divine origin, it is a possibility which no known religion, present or past, embodies. It would be extraordinary for people from across the globe and throughout history who had no contact with each other to independently invent the exact same religion, without a god giving them all the same information through revelation. But again, this situation describes no religion in existence today or ever.

2. If there is a reward for believing, it is fundamentally unfair that some would receive more and more reliable evidence than others. An example may best elucidate this point. In Christianity, those who believe and worship God as he instructs are rewarded with a blissful eternity in Heaven. But not everyone has an equal chance to attain this reward. According to Christianity, some people, such as Jesus' apostles, were eyewitnesses to his life, his miracles, and his resurrection from the dead. Skeptics such as Doubting Thomas were able to assuage their doubts by examining Jesus' empty tomb and touching his resurrected body. But modern skeptics do not have access to this evidence. No one alive today witnessed any of Jesus' miracles, including the resurrection; even if they actually happened, the only evidence we now possess of them is a book, a copy of copies translated from an ancient language that contradicts itself in many places, that claims to contain the accounts of eyewitnesses. Even if Jesus' life happened exactly as the Bible describes it, the Bible itself is the only witness to that fact, and our historical knowledge is so murky and the evidence so scanty that some people have argued that Jesus never existed at all. But while people currently living must muddle through this tortuous mess if they are to arrive at the correct conclusion for salvation, that same conclusion was effortless for Jesus' contemporaries, those who were witnesses to his life and his ministry.

This cannot be considered fair. Why should God pick a small number of people and overwhelm them with so much first-hand evidence that their coming to the correct conclusion is virtually assured, while all the rest of us are forced to subsist on scraps of handed-down hearsay? Is salvation like winning the lottery - a matter of luck? How can God be a god of justice if he gives some people a much better chance than others?

The answer is: he cannot. If God's system of salvation is to be considered fair, then it must be a level playing field, giving everyone the same chance and the same evidence on which to base a decision. Plainly, in this case it is not. It does no good to say that the apostles who had first-hand evidence balanced this by paying in much greater persecution and hardship - many more recent Christians with nothing but hearsay to go on were subjected to persecutions at least as great for their faith. While I have used Christianity as an example, an analogous argument could be applied to any religion purportedly founded or sustained by specific miraculous events at a specific place and time.

3. If there is a punishment for not believing, it is fundamentally unfair that some would receive less evidence than others, or no evidence at all. This is the flip side of the previous point, but is different in subtle yet important ways. If a religion claims to be the exclusive way to salvation and threatens Hell for those who do not believe in it, then what happens to those who never even heard of it due to distance in time or space? What chance do they have of escaping damnation?

For example, if Christianity is the correct religion, then generation after generation - dozens of indigenous cultures, thousands of tribes, millions and millions of people - in North, Central and South America, in Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in Australia and Indonesia - all lived and died in total, tragic ignorance of the one true god, without ever being given a chance to know the love of Jesus or hear about the sacrifice he made. This holds true both for those people who lived before Jesus as well as those who lived during or after his time but before missionaries arrived there. They were never told about the Bible, never got to witness or benefit from any miracles, and never even had one single prophet raised up from among their number. Why did God neglect these people?

More importantly, what is the fate of those who never heard? Did they all go to Hell when they died, simply because God chose not to tell them the way to salvation? Or did they somehow get to Heaven without the redemptive powers of Jesus or even the Jewish law? And if so, if this is possible, then what was the point of sending Jesus or giving the law at all?

The Bible, supposedly God's instruction book to humanity, nowhere addresses this crucial problem. Since the Bible is supposed to contain all relevant information regarding God's plan of salvation, it is exceedingly strange and hard to explain, at least for those who believe in it, that it does not answer such an obviously important question. The most relevant thing it says is its dictum that no man gets to Heaven without Jesus Christ, which implies that all those millions of people who lived and died without ever hearing of him were all damned through no fault of their own, but merely because they were born in the wrong place or at the wrong time. This is horrendously unfair - an infinite atrocity from a god one of whose main characteristics is supposed to be justice.

Lacking biblical guidance, some Christian apologists have attempted to solve this problem themselves. But the answers they have come up with are extremely weak, self-evidently flawed, and give rise to more questions than they answer. A typical example can be found in Jack Chick's book "The Soul-Winner's Handy Guide", which hedges on the matter by offering a variety of poor solutions. Firstly, it claims that all people are sinners and that God always judges righteously, though this does not in any way answer the problem; in fact, it is a refusal to face the problem. Secondly, it asserts of these people that "God's laws are already written in their hearts". If that is the case, then why was it necessary for God to give the laws to anyone? Why do Christian groups today go to all the effort of sending missionaries to other countries if they will only tell people what they already know? And even if people do have such innate knowledge, this does not change the fact that those who were born elsewhere and elsewhen still had much less evidence to go on than those who lived in a time and a place where God was regularly dispensing miracles. Surely the vague promptings of conscience cannot be as powerful an impetus toward salvation as an eyewitness experience to the power of God. Finally, Chick's book reluctantly offers, "Perhaps God, in his foreknowledge, had already known these people would not believe even if they were presented the gospel." This is ludicrous. Are we to believe that in all these cultures - millions of people who lived throughout thousands of years - there wasn't one single person who would have accepted the gospel if he had heard it? Humans are not so monolithic and never have been. And when Christian missionaries did arrive to conquer and colonize these cultures, they seemed to have little enough difficulty finding converts.

Besides, throughout the New Testament, God repeatedly reveals his message to people whom he must know will reject it. (See Matthew 10:5-6, for example, where Jesus tells his disciples to go and preach to the Jews, despite his lamentation in chapter 8 that most if not all of them are going to Hell.) And this does make sense. After all, if God had decided not to reveal his message to people whom he knows will not accept it, there would be no reason for him to reveal his message to anyone at all. He could just use his omniscient foreknowledge to pick out the people who would accept it if they heard it, save them, and condemn the rest. For Christians to say that God places a high emphasis on evangelism, then turn around and say that he doesn't bother spreading his word to everyone, is profoundly inconsistent, not to mention unjust.

Similar situations arise with many other religions. According to Judaism, God chose the Israelites as his people and gave his laws only to them. So what happens to everyone else? Do they have no chance? Is God a racist, condemning people to eternal exclusion from his kingdom based on the situation of their birth? Likewise Islam. Does the Qur'an, God's final revelation to humankind, anywhere explicitly tell us the fate of those who lived and died without ever hearing of monotheism? Since Allah states he does not forgive idolatry, are the pagans and polytheists of ancient times damned to infinite torment for circumstances beyond their control?

4.A religion which strongly reflects the beliefs of its time is more likely to be a product of its time than of revelation. If a given religion was purely the invention of human beings, we would expect that that religion would bear similarities to its culture of origin. On the other hand, a transcendent or all-knowing deity, or even one that was merely far wiser than human beings, would not be limited by what was known or believed at the time he dispensed a revelation, but could provide new information of which people were not previously aware and which did not correspond to any concepts in their experience. However, when we examine religions, we find that the former and not the latter situation invariably applies.

Christianity, again, is a perfect example of this. The theology of this religion blends apocalyptic fears, Jewish monotheistic ideals, Greek ethical philosophy, and the worship practices and beliefs of the mystery cults at precisely the time when those things were mixing at a cosmopolitan crossroads of the Roman Empire. Granted, God could decide to reveal his wisdom to humanity at a time and place when it would exactly resemble a syncretistic fusion of the prevailing theologies of the day. However, all else being equal, the principle of Occam's Razor should lead us to conclude that it is nothing more than that. Positing a deity is an extra assumption that is not necessary and gives no additional explanatory power to any attempt to explain the origins of the Christian religion.

Another way in which this aspect of the Argument from Locality applies is in regard to those religious tenets which state beliefs and approve practices that were widely agreed upon at the time, but that today are recognized to be false or morally wrong. One particularly glaring example is the way the Christian and Jewish scriptures both implicitly and explicitly approve of the practices of human slavery and the institutional inequality of women. Likewise, these writings show no special insight into the workings of the universe other than what was widely known to the people of their time, and make many mistakes common to those who lived in that era - for example, the belief that mental illness and physical disability were caused by demon possession. Again, under the Argument from Locality this is exactly what we should expect: these religions, being the product of those time periods, cannot be expected to show knowledge advanced beyond what the people of those periods possessed.

In closing, consider what would refute the Argument from Locality. We could have found ourselves living in a world with only one religion, spread throughout the globe, with prophets from among every people. We could have found that, when we first contacted isolated native tribes, their religion was identical to one that already existed rather than being entirely their own. We could have found religions that bore no resemblance to the culture of their time and place of origin, in possession of advanced scientific knowledge or advanced ethical principles totally unlike what was commonly believed at the time. These are reasonable things to expect if there really was a god genuinely interested in revealing itself to humanity and being worshipped.

But in reality, we find none of these things. What we find are numerous contradictory and conflicting religions, some with specific "chosen" races or ethnicities, and the further separated they are in time and space, the more their beliefs clash. When we encounter previously isolated tribes, their religions are always new and unique. When we examine the ethical codes and scientific knowledge of religions, they always bear strong resemblances to the times and places where those religions originated. Under the assumption of atheism, this is precisely what we should expect.

One could, of course, argue that this does not prove anything, that God deliberately intended things to be this way. Maybe he has reasons of his own, unknowable to us, for sending his messengers to only one people. Maybe he decided not to disclose advanced knowledge to primitive people. Maybe he allows evil spirits to delude people into creating false religions. Maybe, maybe, maybe - but that is precisely the point. When one believes in supernatural beings that can violate the laws of nature at will and that have motivations inscrutable to humans, all grounds for believing one proposition over another vanish, all knowledge disappears. There is no longer any reason to expect any state of affairs rather than any other. Such a doctrine is impossible to falsify and leads to nothing but epistemic chaos. In explaining anything, theism turns out to explain nothing.

But atheism does not have the luxury of infinitely imaginative explanations unconstrained by fact. Given a few first principles - physical laws and observations whose existence no one disputes - atheism requires that the world can only be one way, and that is the way we in fact find it to be. Believers may argue why God set up the world in just the one way we would expect it to be if he did not exist, but for a freethinker, the conclusion is obvious.

Source

9 Likes

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 7:03pm On Jan 03, 2013
[size=18pt]Eight) Debunking the claim that morality comes from God; an objective law giver[/size]


Christian and muslim apologists claim that morals come from God. The say that God is the absolute or objective moral law giver. His laws are the best for humanity.

There are many problems with this line of thought;


a) Objectivity is a biased human concept;
Human beings will always see things from a human perspective. Our truth and knowledge begins with the use of the 5 senses. Our objectivity is subject to a human bias.

b) Moral objectivity does not exist both in the purest sense and in the religious scripture

Since pure objectivity doesnt exist due to our natural human bias, morality objectivity as well doesnt exist. Also, the holy books of the Abrahamic faiths (the bibles and the Quran) can not be objectively interpreted. There are so many interpretations of the Quran and the bibles that are quite contradictory. For example, some muslims scholars support wife beating, others dont. Also, some christians believe in tithing, others dont.

c)We can not understand a true objective moral giver (God)
We human beings can not understand beyond our 5 senses or beyond our human perception. A being that is outside our five senses with an objective morality beyond human perception will mostly be invisible or unknowable to us. His laws would always be interpreted from a human perspective and therefore misinterpreted.

d) God is a subjective experience

Some see God in visions, some see him in dreams and some see angels that represent him. The holy books that are supposed to be God's word have various interpretations. How do we then get objective morals from such a subjective experience?
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 7:46pm On Jan 03, 2013
[size=18pt]9) Why can't God heal amputees? [/size]


Regeneration of limbs for humans is quite impossible and difficult to fake. It comes as no surprise to atheists that we hardly hear the faith healers claim tat they have grown back a leg or an arm for an amputee.

There are two rationalizations made by apologists for this problem (which both fail)

a) God has a special plan for amputees

Well, there is no such plan in the bible or Quran. This is a simple excuse for God.

b)Amputees dont need healing

This is a sad but not surprising argument that I have heard. I would really like to know how a footballer who lost his leg wouldnt like to play football again?Or a pianist who lost his hand wouldnt liek to play the piano again. It is quite insensitive to make such an argument- unfortunately such is the rationalization and mental gymnastics for God.



The reason why God doesnt heal amputees is simple. A personal omnipotent God doesnt exist. A god may or may not exist but an ambulance god does not.





[img]http://t.qkme.me/11na.jpg[/img]

2 Likes

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 9:13pm On Jan 03, 2013
[size=18pt]10) Did God come out of nothing?[/size]

"Something can't come out of nothing", the theist apologists commonly say.


However, no one knows where God (at least the Abrahamic God) came from. The usual answer atheists get from the question is that God is eternal and didnt need a creator. However, this is a circular argument-

-If we keep identifying a cause for everything, we will into an infinite regress of causes. Therefore, we need a first cause which is uncaused
-God is the first cause and he doesnt need a cause because he is the uncaused.



Unfortunately, this is a flawed argument. This is replacing an infinity with another infinity. You solve a paradox of infinite causes with another paradox of an infinite being.

.

1 Like

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 5:14pm On Jan 04, 2013
[size=18pt]11) Problems with an omnipotent intelligent designer and his designs[/size]

a) Circumcision
We are made by an omnipotent and intelligent designer. However, after creating us we are told that circumcision is necessary for men in the old testament of the bible. While not mandatory as before, circumcision is still popular among the Abrahamic religions (christianity, islam and judaism). One has to ask the question- why did God forget to circumcise us before creation?

b) Abortion
We are told that abortion is a sin by conservative religious people. Unfortunately, the intelligent designer is one of the greatest abortionist known to mankind as miscarriages are the most common complication of human pregnanct. 75% of women trying to conceive face this problem
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/260495-overview




[img]http://t.qkme.me/3p5ek4.jpg[/img]

1 Like 1 Share

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Heathen(m): 6:10pm On Jan 04, 2013
Can this thread be made a sticky?
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 6:13pm On Jan 04, 2013
Heathen: Can this thread be made a sticky?

Yes, the mod has said it will be if we make enough posts
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Heathen(m): 6:22pm On Jan 04, 2013
Logicboy03:

Yes, the mod has said it will be if we make enough posts
how many is enough? Like two, three pages?
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 9:45pm On Jan 04, 2013
Heathen: how many is enough? Like two, three pages?

Two comments per day for a month.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 10:15pm On Jan 04, 2013
[size=18pt]12) A problem of borrowed prophets in Islam[/size]

Christians and Jews believe that Jesus was a religious Jew. However, muslims believe that Jesus was a muslim. Now these two beliefs are contradictory, and at best, only one can be true.

Why Jesus can't be a muslim;

-Jesus was born into a Jewish community (ethnicity)
-Jesus quoted Jewish scriptures
-Jesus talked about the Jewish God.
-Jesus debated Jewish scholars.
-Jesus didnt live by Quranic laws. He turned water into wine for a party.

1 Like

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 2:23am On Jan 05, 2013
[size=18pt]13) The forgiveness loophole[/size]

God is ever merciful and will forgive if you repent of your sins, according to the Abrahamic faiths. Unfortunately, this presents a loophole in human actions and going to heaven.


-A religious man can molest and kill an atheist who rejects all religions and gods. This religious man can repent later in his life and worship God. The problem is that the religious man will go to heaven according to Abrahamic theology while the atheist will probably end up in hell for rejecting God.

[img]http://t.qkme.me/3oqud2.jpg[/img]

6 Likes

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by LordBabs(m): 2:35am On Jan 05, 2013
Much have been said already. In addition:
14. ARGUMENT AGAINST GOD'S DISCRETIONARY MERCY:
Based on the biblical quote below:
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth." (Romans 9:18).
A direct reference to the biblical account of Pharaoh, when God hardened his heart, purportedly to manifest its omnipotence to Pharaoh and the Isrealites at large. Now, the obvious atheistic questions are:
1. Why would God fault someone it intentionally wished to fault?
2. In lieu of hardening Pharaoh's heart to prove your 'Godian' stunts, why not soften his heart, which equally proves your supremacy/omnipotence?
3. Since God will show mercy{?} to whom he wishes, why should I, a mortal still bother to please such erratic God? Afterall, even if I please God, my assurance of getting its reward is on a 50:50 scale; so, why not follow my heart's desire?
4. God's discretionary mercy to mankind is inversely a curse and mockery of its omnipotence. An omnipotent one needs not appeal to authorities(inciting Moses to appeal Pharaoh to let its people go), in accomplishing its godly agenda.
Theistic Counter-argument: that man is liken to a clay in the hands of God: which doesn't tell its potter/maker what and how it should be moulded. Then, if man is like a clay and God a potter, why worry about a clay? Or does a clay worry about its maker/potter? Why make appeals to a mere clay? Would I, as a father, ask for the permission of my 1-month old baby to go and urinate? Quite unnecessary!

4 Likes

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 2:37am On Jan 05, 2013
^^^ please, could you make your title in bold and size 18? Also number it as number 14!
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by LordBabs(m): 2:47am On Jan 05, 2013
Logicboy03: ^^^ please, could you make your title in bold and size 18? Also number it as number 14!
copy that.

1 Like

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 2:48am On Jan 05, 2013
[size=18pt]15) A problem of a literal Adam and Eve.[/size]

The Abrahamic faiths have Adam & Eve as the first human beings on earth and the parents of all humans.


Here are some problems with the story of Adam and Eve

a) Incest
The only way Adam and Eve could have had grandchildren would have been by incest among their children.

b) Biologically impossible for 2 people to populate the earth into billions of the present day

Genetic evidence indicates that humans descended from at least 10,000 people with the amount of variation we have right now.



[img]http://t.qkme.me/pbv.jpg[/img]

5 Likes

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by LordBabs(m): 2:52am On Jan 05, 2013
Logicboy03: [size=18pt]13) The forgiveness loophole[/size]

God is ever merciful and will forgive if you repent of your sins, according to the Abrahamic faiths. Unfortunately, this presents a loophole in human actions and going to heaven.


-A religious man can molest and kill an atheist who rejects all religions and gods. This religious man can repent later in his life and worship God. The problem is that the religious man will go to heaven according to Abrahamic theology while the atheist will probably end up in hell for rejecting God.

[img]http://t.qkme.me/3oqud2.jpg[/img]
i love that label!

2 Likes

Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by LordBabs(m): 2:55am On Jan 05, 2013
Logicboy, my mobile device is failing me, having little problem in enbolding that title and the size. A little guidiance from you is needed. Thanks
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 3:03am On Jan 05, 2013
Lord Babs: Logicboy, my mobile device is failing me, having little problem in enbolding that title and the size. A little guidiance from you is needed. Thanks

I use the Iphone. Just tap your screen to select text (the title) and click on the "B" sign for bold. Select the text again and then click on the "A+arrow" sign to enlarge. When a this text appears; [size=8pt][/size] you change 8 to 18 by putting 1 in front of 8
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by LordBabs(m): 3:44am On Jan 05, 2013
16.) ARGUMENT ABOUT GOD'S ANTHROPOMORPHISM AND PERFECTION:
1. That man is created in the image of God hypothetically implies God's anthropomorphic qualities, e.g. having head, bûms, pênis....a complete denigration on the part of a Super Power persona.
2. If God is described as a perfect entity, and man is fashioned after its likeness, it won't be wrong to assume that man is also a perfect body. But since it's a popular truth that no man is perfect, it sounds crazy to say God is perfect. Moreover, how possible could an imperfection(man) be created out of a perfection(God)? It's either the latter is not perfect, or the former is perfect just as the latter, or the latter is non-existent.
3. If man is created in the image of God, it is not illogical to posit that man's instinctive tendencies are in tandem with their maker's. And as such, the human natural appeal to evil, typical of the Bokoharam, Ku Klux Klan...is inherited from God.
Theistic Counter-Argument: that everything God created was good and perfect, but man's fall (in Eden?)precipitated his imperfection and disconnection from God. The logic is this:
(a) does man's fall discontinue the fact that he's still the image of God?
(b) if man is no more an image of God, then whose image is man adopting now?
(c) if it is impossible for a perfection(God) to be birthed by an imperfection(Man), then why should it not be impossible for an imperfection(Man) to be birthed by a perfection(God)?
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by Nobody: 3:49am On Jan 05, 2013
Please, lordbabs...edit your arguments when you get on a pc or try to do it with your mobile if possible.
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by LordBabs(m): 3:52am On Jan 05, 2013
Logicboy03: Please, lordbabs...edit your arguments when you get on a pc or try to do it with your mobile if possible.
don't mind me joor, this silly device dey fall my hand, i'll surely put all in order as you illustrated. Thanks buddy!
Re: A Library Of The Best 40 Atheist Arguments Against God/religion (NOW WITH PICS) by LordBabs(m): 4:17am On Jan 05, 2013
17.) ARGUMENT AGAINST THE DEVIL:
Theists' often claim that God created the Lucifer and not the devil is not only preposterous, but also flawed! Ask a theist the creator of ALL THINGS, he/she won't hesitate to reply tacitly by saying GOD! Then ask a theist who created evil, he/she will be cunning to tell you that it's the devil, that is after the previous assertion that the source of all things is God. Thus:
1. Is evil not part of the 'ALL THINGS' created by God?
2. If God creates ALL THINGS, then he is (chiefly) responsible for the outcomes(good or bad) of the 'ALL THINGS'.
3. Hence, it's either you agree that God is the same double-actor-devil, or that he is the originator of evils(as attested by the scriptural quote of Isa 45: 7)
4. It's either you agree that God is not the sole creator of ALL THINGS, and that it's got a co-founder(Devil), or you agree that there is nothing like evil, so, all that exists(e.g.murder,râpe,gay...) is good, or you agree that there is no God whatsoever.

(0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) ... (10) (Reply)

Testimony Of A Former Devil Worshiper - Nonkoliso Ngeleka / Top 10 Richest Pastors In The World / Dreams Interpretation! Dreams Interpretation!! Dreams Interpretation!!!

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2017 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 321
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.