This is not a debate, just a request for information I have put it here because I long ago gave up trying to second-guess the logic applied by the Mods/Admins in deciding where a thread belongs.
I am asking for the many SDMB Atheists to provide links to online sources which they believe provide the most convincing argument against the existence of God.
If possible the sources should satisfy the following criteria…
[ul]
[li]Make its points in as few words as possible.[/li][li]Use friendly language that doesn’t belittle theists.[/li][/ul]
I’m not aware of any convincing argument against the existence of God. I won’t speak for the rest of the atheists, but for me, it’s simply a lack of evidence for the existence of God.
I’m with DMC on this, and frankly, this sounds like a trap a theist might use. As soon as atheists start to explain why they believe there’s no God, they get hit with “But you have no evidence for your belief God doesn’t exist, therefore atheism is faith and just as much a religion as theism!”
My arguments for atheism would start with pointing out who profits from theism and let human cynicism takes its course. If that’s belittling, so be it, but I think arguing against indoctrination is a better approach than arguing against God.
Sorry, but that’s really all there is to it. If you don’t show us any evidence for what is being put forth, we’re not going to waste a whole lot of time considering it. What would it take for me to convince you that the universe wasn’t created last Tuesday? The simple answer is that you probably don’t spend a lot of time debating the issue because of the lack of evidence to consider.
But this is exactly why I am asking for what I’m asking for. If somebody out there has succesfully countered this argument then I, an Atheist, would like to have it in my reportoire (sp?)
‘The God Dellusion’ Makes a good argument. But it is a whole book. Hence wanting the best possible convincer that achieves this in the fewest number of words/shortest time.
I would say the best argument would be Occam’s razor. Which isn’t really an argument, but rather a guiding principle of inquiry. God adds an extra layer of complexity that simply isn’t needed to understand the universe. All you end up doing is pushing the ultimate question back one step further. If God created the universe, well, that explains how the universe got here. But how did God get here?
So the best argument against the existence of God is a simple question-- why does there have to be a God? If you can’t give me a good reason, then I’m going to assume there isn’t one. But it’s a fool’s errand to try and prove God doesn’t exist.
The simple answer is, if there is supposedly the same amount of evidence for atheism as there is for religion, then the reverse must also be true. Thus, considering the short amount of time we have on this planet, you’d prefer not to muddy the waters with unnecessary conjectures.
I think Dawkins’ Ultimate 747 Argument from *The God Delusion * is a great argument, and can be summarized in a reasonably brief manner, although it does require a bit of background. It makes in a very sophisticated way the argument that John Mace makes in his first paragraph (plus hoists the theist on his own petard by showing the theist that the cosmological argument and the argument from design actually strongly favor atheism over theism). IMO this argument represents the first real contribution to the theism/atheism debate in years.
I’d say your best defense is to avoid the pitfall entirely. If someone asks you to prove there’s no God, you’re better off just shrugging and saying “I can’t, but the people who say there is a God can’t prove it, and they want you to give them money and adulation.”
Going from the requirements you’ve given, and that atheism is a lack of positive belief in god, then all you’re left with is “There is not, and never has been, any credible proof of the existence of God. It’s up to you to offer extraordinary proof for this extraordinary claim.”
At some point they’ll bite and start tossing you various discredited “proofs” of God’s existence, which along with their refutations exist all over the internet including the links given above. But it’s most important to stick to your guns in saying that god doesn’t exist without an assertive proof - it’s not your job to prove that god doesn’t exist.
Any arguments for atheism require that an argument against it has already been put forth. All atheist arguments are reactionary, whether it’s to a specific claim about a certain deity or a general one about the possibility of a characteristic that deities may have. So effectiveness and how convincing they are depends very much on what and who you’re arguing against.
You’ve put “God” up in your OP, but are you referring to the Christian God, or to gods in general? Do you mean from a Catholic view, a CofE one, LDS? Is this an omni-type god? You need to put something forth before it can be argued against.
Thanks all for replies so far. And to those who provided links… Spatial Rift 47, jjimm, and lowbrass.
If I can’t have convincing arguments for God’s non existence (or convincing arguments against arguments for God’s existence) then at least give me sites that give convincing answers to many of the ‘facts’ put forward by the mainstream religions… Earth no older than 4000 years, Dinosoars never existed, “I know God exists because I’ve felt his love/presence”
That last one is the most frustrating because what you are faced with is pure blind faith and that’s hard to respond to.
I guess what I’m hoping for is a level of knowledge and skill of articulation that you can give a short robust airtight answer to anything thrown at you by the theism camp.
T: “How do you explain the evolution of the eye”
A: “Simple.”
A: <short description of eye evolution>
T: “I have felt God. When I needed him most he came to my aid”
A: “Happy to hear you found help in your hour of need, but it wasn’t God. It was…<explanation of what probably happened psychologically>”
I could go oon. DO you get the idea? I am convinced there are people out there who are very good at that type of thing… and their talent must be quoted on the web.
There are people of different religion and ostensibly of the same religion who believe in notably different gods, yet claim to feel that god’s love/prescence. This means that either;
They’re deliberately lying. Possible, but it would mean you pretty much can’t trust anyone on religious matters. And you’d need to have a reason why the majority of the world’s population is lying.
They’re mistaken. Which means humans can be mistaken about these things, which means you could be mistaken.
I believe there is a God, but I don’t want you to give me money and adulation. I want to give money to people who desperately need it. I gave money to two families today and gave time to a third where someone is dying. I say this not because I want adulation, but just to illustrate how common it is that the Christians around you are doing just the opposite of the words you use to describe us.
Why are you doing this? A reasonable response doesn’t involve misinformation about theists. Fight ignorance; don’t be the source of it.
Yeah, this theist argument falls flat with me, because it’s essentially trying to prove a negative, which is a fallacy in and of itself.
The argument which swayed me the most was questioning whether a loving god as he was portrayed in the Bible would allow so many of his followers to suffer so horribly, particularly in regard to the Holocaust. The philosopher and political pundit Sydney Hook once referred to the Holocaust as the twentieth century’s argument against God. I have listened to various theists’ explanations ranging from the mundane (“God works in mysterious ways.”) to the repulsive (“God let the Jews be killed because they had fallen away from the faith”), but really, once you take the full scale of six million of God’s faithful being allowed to be slaughtered by power mad petty bureaucrats, the flowery promises of the Bible written down 2,000 years ago ring hollow, as do its basic premises.
And as for:
Don’t even bother. The people who float these arguments are impervious to any argument you could come up with. It doesn’t help that we aren’t actually certain how the eye evolved, which brings me to another point: The theists have an advantage over us debate-wise. Scientists–at least the good ones–quite often find themselves answering “We don’t know yet” to murky questions, which is a perfectly valid response. The theists, however, start out with certainty, and it’s easy for them to say “God did it!” with thorough conviction, which makes them look intelligent (as well as pious) and us look like indecisive cretins. Believe me when I tell you that religionists who debate this kind of thing for a living are the masters of this. If you let them lead you down the evolution path, they will beat you for sure, not because they know the subject better than we do, but because they’re not exactly hindered by details like intellectual honesty.
Also, Lobsang, I would definitely recommend reading the transcript of the great debate between Father Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell. Here, you have two incredible scholars at the top of their game going head to head over the existence of God, and both do very well, IMHO. As a bonus, Russell explains the problem with your second question about God coming to someone’s aid much better than I could.