SDMB Atheists..point me in the direction of the most convincing arguments for Atheism

It’s this type of manipulative “logic” from some atheists that I find irritating.
Where did I say that a belief in god is “in no way similar” to a belief in Santa Claus?

So, because, in your opinion, the evidence (Is it more significant when CAPITALIZED?) is “identical”, a theist has the burden of proof, not to show that god exists, but to demonstrate that a belief in god is different from a belief in Santa Claus? Is that your argument? :dubious:

And why do you say “not ours” rather than “not mine”? Are you speaking on behalf of all atheists?

Where did I make any claims about the veracity of those beliefs? The point here is (oh, wait: The POINT HERE is):
Does an argument against the existence of Santa Claus demonstrate that god does not exist?

Lobsang, here are some different arguments that I’ve given in the past:


As a young kid I figured out a truism about people which is that you can convince yourself of anything. I told myself every day that “Pain exists to let your brain know that something is damaged. Once you’ve recognized the signal, there’s no more point in feeling pain.” And over time I was able to ignore pain whenever I wanted to. (Handy when you don’t have an aspirin.)

Another thing I figured out I call “The pschology of control.” The premise of this is that the thing people most care about is being able to control themselves. This makes sense since, controlling yourself is the only thing in the world you have any control over, and even here it’s not 100%. But the thing is, when people experience something that they can’t control, they will react wierdly to it, particularly if it’s something to do with their own body, and particularly if they are very young. This is why molestation of children really messes with their minds, is because the pleasurable feelings aren’t something that the child can control, while as the “I don’t want to be doing this”, logical part of their brain is forced to shush. It won’t necesarily mess up the child, but the odds are higher.

Now a third item to present is evolution. Evolution works to create a physical set of capabilites, and a socialogical set of impulses, desires, and fears that are ingrained into our bodies because these have been found to work successfully in perpetuating the species. These are largely independent of rational thought.

And a fourth item, as shown in the threads about the Stanford Prison Experiment, is that humans are liable to turn off their brains and accept what the alpha wolf says.

Now tying this all together:

God is (or gods are) was the creation of storytellers to raise children with so that they could learn about the history of their people, learn respect for their people, and go out and die for their people. The god stories taught you to be brave or meek, humble or proud, as the storyteller or as society thought was needed. In a land before scientific experiment and empirical evidence, though, these stories became legends, and eventually fact. The parents would tell their children that “Our people are descended from the God Uktamata, who brought the sun to the sky and made this land for us” so that the children felt safe in the world, and proud. And the parents let it rest at that because there was no need to say anything different because it made them feel good to say it.

Now the reason that the child likes to hear such things, and parents to tell such is because when kids are with their parents and when parents are spending time teaching their children, mother nature is happy. This is an approved human attribute that has been introduced by evolution to perpetuate the species. Humans care for their young. They don’t let the eggs hatch and fend for themselves.

Evolution enforces this behavior through chemicals in your brain which make you feel good. This is something that you have no control over. Just suddenly you feel good.

When you take care of your children, find a wife, fend for your family, grow food, look at green growing places and wide blue skies, fight for the the pack, we recognize these as being good things, and our brain gets drugged with endorphins. We experience a “high.”

And since we know that these things are now “good” things, we teach our children this, in the form of stories. “Uktamata took a wife. She bore his children. The gods gave gifts to the child, and swore to serve him. And the child would grow up to become the strongest fighter, the farest seeer, and he would lead the gods honestly, solving their struggles with the demons, or among themselves. And he protects us, for we are his children as well, and we give him gifts.” And how do you know that he protects you? You know it because when you do anything that the “gods” approve of, we get a good feeling that we can’t explain and that we don’t control. Certainly that is the gods?

Now it also happens that as people come to believe in these gods that the leaders of the people become enslaved to the gods. If keeping the gods pleased is required to make sure that the gods protect us, then the government must make sure this happens. And surely the gods chose Lokatil as the chieftan of the people because he was the fiercest fighter, and had the levelest head. And as the collecter of the tales of the gods, shaman Okraty should always be consulted to make sure that we are doing what the gods really want.

So suddenly Lokatil and Okraty are empowered by the existence of the gods. And surely what they think is right, is what the gods think is right, since they were the ones chosen to know about and appease the gods.

So as time goes on, the choices of Lokatil and Okraty become the law of the gods, the people teach it to their young children as fact, the children feel a high which enforces what their (always honest) parents tell them, and convince themselves that this is true. And when the gods need them to die for the people, they know it is true, for they have felt it, and learned it, and now convinced themselves that it is true.

So that’s my definition of what the gods are. People combining stories with a rationalization for what’s happening when endorphins are released into your brain, and reinforced through the generations because as a society, it was useful and felt “right.”


As an all-powerful being, God could simply snap his fingers and make me believe in him. Of course, an advanced species of aliens could just as easily turn on their telepathy inductance device and make me believe that they are gods. In a sense, by sheer virtue of me being a rather flimsy electro-chemical reaction under self locomotion, any proof of something like that is not trustworthy. Humans are incapable of a reliable belief in deities due to our limitations in comparison to that which is being posited.


People who are religious are primarily so because their parents taught them to be. I think you will find that vastly overwhelmingly, any select region generally holds the same religion, and isn’t a hodge-podge, buffet-style conglomeration where every other person “chose” a religion that was right for him. So either:

  1. People are lazy and go with whatever those about them believe
  2. People predominantly go with what their parents taught them
  3. Certain gods have more influence over select areas, thus leading people in those areas to believe in that specific god, rather than some other.

Now certainly #1 is fairly believable, and probably a strong force. But given as, for instance, the children of Jews are generally of the Jewishfaith , the children of Muslims generally subscribe to Islam, and so on–and that minorities quite often stay with their own religion rather than switching to the religion of the majority–I have to suspect that #2 is probably the deciding factor. Yes that will vary depending on time and place, but meh, close enough for anything worth debating.

#3 we shall just ignore.

If you can think of some #4 possibility, I would gladly listen to it, but otherwise we’re not accomplishing much.

(It should be noted that 92% of people share the same belief as their parents–including atheism.)

That’s why I said Occam’s Razor isn’t an argument. It’s simply a guiding principle for analysis. And Occam lived at a time when Theism was a reasonable assumption-- not having the advantage of the kind of scientific understanding we’ve developed in the last 200 years or so. When you have little understanding of how the natural world works, “God did it” isn’t an unreasonable assumption.

There’s nothing manipulative about it. I’m just correcting your own fallacy. You don’t seem to have much familiarity with logic. You tried to reverse a burden of proof.

I didn’t say you said that. I said that your demand for atheists to somehow prove they are the same is fallacious.

Who said you don’t have a burden to prove that God exists? You have the burden BOTH to prove that God exists and to prove that a belief in God is more rational than a belief in the Easter Bunny. Your apparent incomprehension (as indicated by your smiley) is not a rebuttal of anything.

I’m not speaking “on behalf” of anything, I’m informing you of rules of logic. Those rules do not change for any atheist or any theist.

You implied that the fact that theology is taught in colleges is some kind of evidence that belioef in God is different from any other mythological belief. If you weren’t implying a difference in veracity, what difference WERE you implying?

No one said it did. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty following lines of argument.

Actually actually, the evidence for Santa is far more compelling, if one accepts that “Santa Claus” is simply the modern name for a monk named Nicholas born in what is now Turkey circa 270 CE. It’s not completely inconceivable he faked his death on December 6, 343 and now lives at the North Pole. In any event, whether or not Santa Claus does exist, we have reasonable evidence he did exist. God, not so much.

If god exists and wants us to believe in him, it would be simple to stage a huge miracle demonstrating that. It has not happened . People say god works in mysterious ways as a defense. That is another work around to avoid a direct answer. It does not work and no other argument works either. There is absolutely no proof ever offered. Just believe.

Not so, several people can personally experience “whatever” and each have something different to say about it. This is common.

Of course there is, at some point you will reach an unknown cause. That will be the First Cause. Nothing on this planet is infinite that I know of.

Of course. Us atheists didn’t hypothesize God.

An infinite regress of causes probably violates the laws of physics (since it seems to entail a steady state universe and a denial of the second law of thermodynamics), even if it is not logically inconsistent. But again, as I said above, at some point you, the theist, will be forced into a case of special pleading. You will demand that the atheist give a cause for the universe, but refuse to give a cause for God, or explain why God doesn’t need a cause (unless reciting meaningless phrases like ‘self-existent being’ counts as giving an explanation, which of course it doesn’t). It’s easy to win an argument if you get to decide one set of rules for your opponent and a different one for yourself. Try playing by the same rules as the atheist and see how far you get.

Okay. Perhaps you (or someone else in this thread) can educate me.

Let’s start with these two statements:

  1. “God exists.”
  2. “A belief in God is the same as a belief in Santa Claus.”

Are you saying that the two statements are the same? It’s obvious to me that the two statements are different. Who has the burden of proof of demonstrating that the statements are, or are not, the same?

Who has the burden of proof for statement #2? A theist or an atheist?

Chief Pendant said this:

I said:

And, in response, you said:

Are you saying that Chief Pendant is not presenting an argument against the existence of Santa Claus as a way of demonstrating that god does not exist? If that’s what you’re saying, then who has the burden proof?
And do you think that he presents the “most convincing argument against Santa Claus”? I don’t think so. Who has the burden of proof?

BTW, are you saying that the placement of “burden of proof” is determined by the rules of logic? If yes, please provide some corroboration of your claim.

Thank you.

Then we must question the reality and importance of “whatever”, since it can be so easily misinterpreted and apparently is a result of what people bring to it.

IOW, if parts of what I see are brought to the table by me, how may I be sure which parts are the real parts and which are those that i’ve got from my view of it?

Many people have had no religious experience. Does this mean that it cannot be so? No. You personally not knowing of anything that is infinite (and it would be “in this universe” not just “on this planet”) means neither that no other people have, or that it cannot be so.

Due to the massive number of religions and variants thereof, one can fairly ask how a given believer knows that their religion is correct, as opposed to other peoples. In the likely event they claim personal religious experience as a reason, you then can point out that people of other religions have and have had religious experiences too. How does the believer know that the other religious people’s experiences are incorrect or misinterpreted, and that their own aren’t?

At this point, the believer has no option but to engage in special pleading (specifically of a type that strongly argues for being based on nothing but personal egotism), or to admit that no religious person, including themselves, has a leg to stand on in claiming that their own religious experiences have the meaning that they have interpreted into them, since nobody can claim to be certain that they are less personally fallible than everybody else.

(In my experience, they all go the egotistical special pleading route.)

I was making the point that from a rational viewpoint there is no more evidence for God than for Santa. Therefore a shortcut “argument” is to ask an individual if he believes in any mythical being he does not believe in. Let him then advance the same arguments against the rationality of believing in God.

Those whose belief is based on a personal experience are not likely to be dissuaded, but they are not relying on reason. They are relying on feelings. As David Hume pointed out many years ago, a rational man finds that miracles cannot be known to happen because it is more likely that one’s perception is in error than that natural law has been violated. For this category of people I might point out that the variety and inconsistency of Personal Revelations suggests that the experiences are entirely internal. This argument will not be persuasive for these individuals, any more than one can persuade a psychotic individual that their personal reality is wrong…

The burden of proof is on the individual positing that magic happens. The name of the magician is irrelevant. Surely you are not suggesting that it’s somehow arbitrary to decide who has to prove what. If I say, “I know this guy who can move a mountain with one finger” and I am challenged on it, it is silly to pretend that there is some sort of burden of proof for the challenger to show there is no such person. The entire burden of proof is on me to produce the mountain-mover.

Or ask yourself: How could you, a puny hoo-man, tell the difference between the God of Abraham (who should be feared and worshiped) and some highly advanced alien life form (who should be feared, but fought instead of worshiped).

Many of the replies in this thread are achieving what I was asking for in the OP.
I didn’t succesfully get to the point with my questions early on. But I can see now that what I was looking for was statements that could make anybody stop and think.

A good example is the one posted by Sage Rat (and possibly earlier on in the thread, I don’t know) that people born into a specific religion are highly likely to follow that religion, therefore the oportunity to make them think comes in the form of a question such as…

“Don’t you think it’s an awfully lucky coincidence that you happen to have been born to parents and in a society that believes the same thing as you?”

“It’s lucky you weren’t born in because in the people believe something totally different”

I disagree. I’m happy to admit I don’t know. I won’t debate a theist on any fine points of any scientific theory. None of it matters. I don’t have a clue about thousands of things, how an eyeball came to be is merely one of them. My cluelessness doesn’t mean that there is some omniscient being in the sky.

Furthermore, far from “God did it” being a decisive or intelligent answer, it is a non-answer. An abdication. Theists don’t have a clue what their god is, where it comes from, or how it does what it does. Theists tend to be so steeped into the idea that “my god did it” is some form of actual knowledge that they never examine what they mean. Would any theist who asked a person how a Certain Thing came to be, accept as a serious answer: “By someone, somehow”? Of course not. Not even if the “someone” was given a name which meant (in essence) “the person who made the Certain Thing”.

Never let a theist get away with the conceited nonsense that “God did it” is an answer to anything.

And the answer would probably be “why yes, quite.”

Perhaps the matter is better stated thusly: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” (attributed to someone named Stephen Roberts).

Fine…but please answer for us the question that begbert2 raises. I.e., do you believe that a Muslim who claims to have had such an experience, a Buddhist who claims to have, etc., etc. are all correct in their interpretation? Or are some of these mistaken and only the Christian ones are correct?

Point 2 is really a question. It asks the theist how a belief in God should be distinguished from a belief in any other magical entity.

No.

If by “the two statements” you mean the two statements that you numbered, then no one has said they are the same. The suggestion is that the theist shoul be ASKED why the two beliefs are DIFFERENT.

The theist has the burden to prove the beliefs are different.

Chief Pedant said that Santa should be used as a questioning tool for the theist. Atheism constututes no positive claim in and of itself, but using analogies like Santa Claus is a way to get theists to see the lack of evidence for their OWN assertions. It’s a response to a claim, not a claim in itself.

He doesn’t attempt to present any such thing. He suggested that the THEIST should be asked what HE thinks is the most convincing reason not to believe in Santa and then to ask why that reason (whatever the theist comes up with) does not also apply to God.

Once again, it’s a QUESTION. The theist is being given an opportunity to explain why the beliefs are NOT the same. You also seem to have the idea that any of this kind of response amounts to a claim that God (or Santa) does not exist. It doesn’t. The atheist is making no such claim in this scenario. He’s only asking the theist to clarify his own claims.

It’s on the person who is making a positive claim, especially when it’s a positive claim of magic. The atjeist makes no claim at all and therefore has nothing to prove.

Really? You want “corroboration” that the burden of proof is dictated by the rules of logic? What do you think “logic” means? What do you think SHOULD determine the burden of proof?

Whatever. Here you go: