Since Nature’s Call just caused the dead walk the earth, I figure that’s pretty good evidence of a God, right there.
But seriously, though, the biggest piece of evidence for me is the failure of prayer. God just doesn’t answer prayers like he says he does. So he probably doesn’t exist at all. If prayer worked, I’d consider that fact to outweigh all the evidence against a divine being. Keep your implausibility, keep your PoE- If prayer worked, I’d be religious.
… no two of you can get your story straight.
Religious folks are all keen on me getting me to believe in God, in the general sense. Then they want me to believe the details that they tell me. Then they want me to argue with other people about those details. Then they want me to fight about even the smallest of those details. Best to not start down that path.
It depends on what you consider evidence. Are anecdotal experiences of subjective beliefs evidence? If so, they’re the very weakest kind of evidence.
In order for Africa not to exist, there must be a ridiculously widespread hoax. Explorers for thousands of years must’ve been lying in unison - including ones who reported trips to the same land but never actually met each other to get their stories straight. Different cartographers who made compatable maps of the same areas, people who came home with stories of the same places - hell, the african people themselves which sometimes travelled outside of the world and clearly had a different origin than other places. Everyone who ever ventured to Africa must’ve been intercepted by the grand conspiracy and somehow convinced to lie, millions of people over centuries - from early explorers to people on routine safari vacations. Millions of pictures and other hard evidence must’ve been faked, or at least taken somewhere with a mockup of what Africa is supposedly like. Etc etc. There’s tons of evidence for the existance of Africa which can only be ruled invalid with the notion of the grandest conspiracy in the history of mind by about 5 million orders of magnitude.
On the other hand, the widespread existance of a religion needs no such conspiracy. Cultures adopt beliefs to explain away the things they don’t understand. This is universal throughout human history. The proof? It’s utterly clear that humans are wired to do this, it’s a natural consequence of social structures. Even if we concede that your religion is right and real, then there are billions of people following other religions that are wrong, and therefore they serve as proof that even in the absense of a real religion, people will, with utter dedication, make one up and follow it.
Which of these scenarios seems most plausible to you?
Then why do we have several completely incompatable religions which have all stood thousands of years of time? This is essentially an argument ad populi with a time factor thrown in
It’s ironic you should point to this, though - as the world becomes more enlightened, religion becomes less and less of a factor in the world. So you’re sort of right.
Do these people have special knowledge or evidene that you don’t have access to that would make them authorities on the subject? They’re working under the same situation as you are, so why is their belief more concrete?
And for that matter, the followers of any religion have people they respect and trust telling them that Hinduism/shintoism/Islam/etc. are correct. Why are your trusted people more valuable than theirs?
I see this a lot. What would a universe that had no creator look like to you?
People just attach “ok, but god did it!” on top of everything we learn about the world.
“Ok, so the earth is the center of the universe and the heavens move around us” “god did it!”
“Ok, so the earth isn’t the center, and we actually revolve around the sun, and the spinning of the earth is what causes the apparent motions of the skies” “ok… god did it!”
“Ok, so we have ample fossil evidence now and knowledge of inheritance to explain how animals evolved” “Ok, but… that’s how god wanted it to happen, so god did it!” (This is actually the more enlightened view and I wish all of you would at least get on board for this much - the other response is “nope, Jesus rode dinosaurs”)
“Ok, so we’ve learned so much about the universe and the big bang and how it all came to be and …” “god did it!”
So essentially, if the universe as we understand it is explained by a creator having his hand in everything, what would a universe that didn’t have an intelligent, purposeful creator look like? When couldn’t you just add “…god did it” on the end of an observation to make it confirm your beliefs?
You’re explaining why they’re deluded, not that they aren’t deluded. People who haven’t come to examine all the evidence regarding the tooth fairy and therefore believe in it are deluded - and hell, at least there’s some real albeit faulty evidence to go on there.
Well I’m glad to hear you had your own personal enlightenment, and I suspect that your defense here is to defend your previous beliefs, but in effect you are trying to defend and legitimize delusion.
As far as quantum mechanics - weird and counterintuitive doesn’t mean unprovable. The things we know about quantum mechanics we can verify by testing - the things we’re wrong about get discarded and the things we’re right about get confirmed. Of course, nowadays every kooky idiot justifies their own supernatural belief swith vague reference to quantum mechanics - but I mean actual quantum mechanics is science, as much as any other.
That ignores the fact that almost all religious people have been raised in the faith since they were kids. Before and during the process of maturation, the kids get religion through classes , services and rituals shoved down their throats. It is cruel.
I probably convoluted my own point bringing Africa into it - my prime point was merely to challenge the assertion that there is no evidence whatsoever. Let me put it this way. My grade school social studies text book had a chapter on Africa. So I have book evidence for its existence. My Sunday School teacher pointed to the Bible which talked about how to obtain salvation. There was no reason for me to seek out independent corroborating evidence for either assertion.
prima facie: {Prima facie evidence} (of a fact) (Law), evidence which is sufficient to establish the fact unless rebutted.
You an I are privileged to life in a world in which the HMS Beagle has sailed. The “evidence of design is evidence of a designer” has been successfully rebutted. But not everyone has got the memo (and the memo takes some effort to read and fully understand). There are those who have accepted the prima facie evidence in support of a designer, have combined that with other evidence and concluded “therefore God.” It is, in my opinion, unfair to label someone as “deluded” when they may merely not fully informed.
Consider this: You are a cop and walk into a room. You see me covered in blood, holding a knife, crouched over a dead body that has been stabbed to death. I’m going to tell you “I didn’t do it.” My assertion is evidence of my innocence, but whether I did it nor not I likely would have said the same thing, right? At my murder trial, even though I have the presumption of innocence, when you present the evidence you have, I will be convicted unless I present more evidence to the contrary.
In other words, the judge needs a reason to reject your evidence. As it stands, she would likely be convinced of my guilt. Then my lawyer begins the defence case, calls the security guard who was on duty that day. The security guard produces a video tape of the scene which shows the actual murderer, that murderer fleeing the scene, then me walking in and stupidly picking up the knife - just as you walk in.
Now the judge has a reason to reject your testimony as evidence of my guilt.
My point is: each of us is a judge and God’s on trial for the crime of existing. Some of us, because of upbringing or whatnot, are convinced that the people who say he does exist are credible. Some of us had not had the opportunity to hear the case for the defence (i.e. here’s why we are certain he does NOT exist). In fact, unlike the controlled courtroom condition where the judge MUST listen to the defence before deciding - most people think they’ve safely reached a conclusion before evidence to the contrary is heard. Then, given they already believe in God, when someone tries to convince them otherwise they may consider such attempts the work of God’s enemy!
My previous beliefs were a mistake and consumed a terrible waste of energy and time that I wish I could get back. In fact, I would even go so far as to say my personal zeal was borderline (if not full out) delusion. What I am defending is:
You’re absolutely correct. The weird stuff in QM has been demonstrated. My point is only that weirdness does not necessarily correlate to truthiness. It is insufficient to simply say “the God hypothesis is too weird to be true.” Let me quickly add, though: as Sagan said “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” There is extraordinary proof for the truth of the appearance of superposition and the other weird findings of QM. There is not sufficient proof for the existence of a supernatural intelligence. The amount of weirdness raises the bar for what proof is sufficient, but the amount of weirdness is not necessarily a measure of truth.
I think my compelling reason for atheism is just that humans have so many reasons to create religions and spiritual belief. Part of it is the desire to understand the things we don’t, part of it is to comfort ourselves with the idea of a purpose outside of and greater than ourselves, but the one reason above all that religion (as opposed to spiritual belief, which may or may not be associated with religion) exists is that it is such an effective way to gain and retain power over other people. I am willing to believe that the vast majority of contemporary clergy members are sincere in their beliefs and not in the game for gain, but when I look at the way religion has been used over the centuries to amass political and/or financial power, I realize that regardless of whether or not a god exists, humans would invent one or many.
In fact, about the only real difference between Der Trihs’s religious views and my own is that I truly believe there are people who are both sincerely religious and truly moral - i.e. that religion does not infallibly corrupt its practioners.
If only there was a way to conclusively prove either of those things…
My trip last year to The Gambia just left me even more confused as to whether Africa exists or not.
This is what convinced my rational brain. We spent thousands of years thinking that lightning, earthquakes, volcanoes, and disease were created by god(s), and meteorology, seismology, volcanology, and the germ theory pulled god(s) out of the picture. When the supernatural gets relegated to smaller and smaller gaps, the logical conclusion is that it doesn’t exist at all.
Additionally, I read a book on the history of religion, and wondered how, if the ancients had it right with their religion, why don’t we still believe that today? And if, say, Judaism/Christianity/Islam is correct, why didn’t we even know of that God until a few thousand years ago, rather than at the dawn of civilization?
My emotional brain just doesn’t believe, and as others have mentioned, you can’t force that. It’s there or it ain’t.
The fact that time and again, new discoveries have explained with science what was once attributed to gods. If we extend that concept forward, then ultimately there would seem to be no need for supernatural entities.
Germ theory. All these people claiming to have 2 way communication with a diety and not one of them explained how germ theory worked.
Imagine the billions of lives we could’ve saved had people had access to this basic info about how infectious diseases worked, proper hygiene, clean water and sanitation, etc. But Mohammed, Buddha, Zoroaster and all the other prophets of all the other religions never mention it. All they did was talk about philosophy.
So I can’t see how there can be a loving diety we should care about or listen to because of it.
If the diety didn’t think it was important enough for us to know about germ theory, then he deserves to be ignored. But the most likely explanation is just that there is no all knowing diety that has anything to do with our lives.
But for me, the lack of any mention of germ theory in religion is my biggest opposition to the concept. If there were a loving diety, he would’ve explained to us how to avoid getting sick and dying from easily preventable diseases.
Religion is likely hardwired into our brains for evolutionary reasons (reasons that haven’t been totally clarified yet), plus many of us have been culturally indoctrinated with the concept that religion is both real and a good thing.
So I admire people who can just blow off religion and never think twice about it. But for those of us who are culturally and genetically predisposed to being religious (how religious you are is about 50-60% genetic according to twin studies), we need good arguments to keep the concept at arms length. I like my atheism but still feel pulls from time to time to go back to some spiritual belief.
I grew up in a very religious community with devout friends. Though my family was non-religious, I was always missing the one final keystone that would remove the niggling doubts and guilt pushing me to think that there was something wrong with me because I wasn’t spiritual.
Then, I stumbled across this delightful quote whose wonderful absurdity brought all of my subconscious skepticism, logic, and disbelief to a critical mass:
“I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said “Stop! don’t do it!” “Why shouldn’t I?” he said. I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!” He said, “Like what?” I said, “Well…are you religious or atheist?” He said, “Religious.” I said, “Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?” He said, “Christian.” I said, “Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?” He said, “Baptist!” I said,“Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?” He said, “Baptist church of god!” I said, “Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?” He said,“Reformed Baptist church of god!” I said, “Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?” He said, “Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!” I said, “Die, heretic scum”, and pushed him off.” – Emo Phillips
Prophet? 
Sally Struthers. During the 80’s when there were all those “for only ten cents a day…” commercials during the Ethiopian famines, I realized: if there was a God, how could he allow this many people to suffer?
Then, as I got older, I became agnostic when I realized: with all the suffering in the world, if there is a God, it’s very likely he’s neither intelligent nor benevolent. I came to believe that God is a force of nature, not an intelligent being.
I am absolutely convinced there is no God or Heaven or Hell or any kind of karma, judgement, or reincarnation. Or ghosts.
It’s a shame, though, as some of those have appealing factors.
Yup.
I think I have the spirituality gene. 
Knowing I was faking belief just to fit in. Eventually, fitting in lost it’s attraction.
If I had to make one argument against the existence of God, it would be intelligent design. If you argue that we are so complex, there must have been a designer, then that designer himself can’t have arisen spontaneously. Rather than having all powerful deitys springing into existence, I find it more plausible that imperfect humans and other life forms did so.
Add me to the list of people who can’t believe in a god with the power to answer prayer who allows so much innocent suffering in the world. Children starving? Children born with illnesses leading to lives of endless pain? Torture of animals? Natural disasters … Praising a god who can stop the cruelty and doesn’t, is inconceivable to me. If he can’t do anything, then why bother with him? I would gladly pray every day, if only he would stop the suffering. I won’t get a kneeling pad just yet.
I don’t disbelieve in god(s) per se. I disbelieve in all the conceptions of god(s) I am aware of- Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, Zoroastrian and so on.
Somewhere out there may be a value of “god(s)” I believe in; it’s just that the goalposts would have to be moved a long way from extant religions. Aliens seeding life on our planet, or somesuch - I mean, they’d be mortal beings, but also our creators, and therefore in a sense they’d be gods.