Religion and Ethics and Health BBS

Religion and Ethics and Health BBS
[ Religion and Ethics and Health BBS ]

What are the best arguments FOR atheism?

Posted by Devo on November 12, 2025, 4:25 am

Is there any of them??

Predators..

Posted by thinking on November 17, 2025, 12:44 am, in reply to "What are the best arguments FOR atheism?"

...chased things in the sea and they jumped up onto dry land and had things added to them.

Making that choice by..

Posted by scott on November 15, 2025, 6:00 am, in reply to "What are the best arguments FOR atheism?"

Your own free will.

It is the wrong choice for sure as there is more evidence than not that there is a God.

History of Jesus by the followers of Jesus, forgiveness and love explained along with signs and wonders. Written books and letters from the Old and New Testaments.

Witnesses to his genius in teachings, life, and resurrection.

Personal revelation of God and Jesus is so compelling followers are willing to lay down their lives in testament of His truth and reality.

Archeology not just written but discovered, uncovered, and verified as read in the Bible. Many books even today authenticate the earlier historical sites from digs and found items.

A quick AI search compilation of a follower and my personal experience bear out the following:

Cliff Knetchel, a contemporary evangelist, says there are these four reasons he believes as grounds, evidence, and solid truth about Jesus. His main focus os on historical evidence and personal experience:

Jesus's Sinless Life and Teachings: Jesus lived an extraordinary, sinless life and delivered teachings that possess a unique "ethical genius," such as the Sermon on the Mount.

His Death and Forgiveness: He died on the cross while forgiving his enemies, a powerful demonstration of a unique and authentic love.

The Reliability of the Gospels: The Gospels are the most reliable ancient documents in terms of manuscript evidence and dating to the actual events, providing credible eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.

The Historical Resurrection: Jesus rose from the dead three days later. The apostles and early followers were willing to die for what they claimed to have seen—the risen Christ—not just a belief or an idea, which serves as powerful evidence for the resurrection's historicity.

Knechtle argues that the overwhelming evidence points to Jesus being exactly who he claimed to be: not a liar, a lunatic, or someone who was simply lied about, but the Lord.

The aha moment in one's life, after seeking to discover truth, is the only evidence that cannot be overturned. Wholesale onslaught of temptations are evidence enough to determine our greed, sinful nature, and prideful ways. The experts of atheist thought cannot disclaim the human destruction of those who endeavor to chase after the ways of our flesh, the eyes lusting over things not owned, and the pride of this life's entire accumulated experience that equals a grave at it's ending.

So. Choose this day whom you will serve, God or man.

It bothers you. On second thought, if it didn't you be totally silent.

Posted by Mugwump on November 14, 2025, 7:37 am, in reply to "What are the best arguments FOR atheism?"

Oh, well.

Atheism is nothing more than skepticism about religious claims

Posted by Moishe on November 14, 2025, 4:18 am, in reply to "What are the best arguments FOR atheism?"

For example, some religions claim that a soul exists after death. All the physical evidence points to the fact that brain activity ceases upon death.

Therefore, as an atheist I reject the claim that a soul exists after death and I invite the religious to prove otherwise.

So far, crickets.

I apply the same skepticism to a host of religious claims, e.g. resurrections, moon-splitting and, of course, god(s).

Who said the soul is in any way connected to the brain?

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 15, 2025, 2:34 am, in reply to "Atheism is nothing more than skepticism about religious claims"

Your brain is just water and other chemicals.

Your soul is your unique, everlasting serial number and monument to your one-time bodily existence.

Serial number? Srsly?

Posted by Moishe on November 15, 2025, 8:23 am, in reply to "Who said the soul is in any way connected to the brain?"

Now my skeptical nose is really twitching.

You bin drinkin'?

Virtual, dude.

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 15, 2025, 12:45 pm, in reply to "Serial number? Srsly?"

Pipe down.

Re: atheism?

Posted by Christopher Blackwell on November 13, 2025, 5:35 pm, in reply to "What are the best arguments FOR atheism?"

There is no need under the Constitution to have to defend your beliefs, You have the absolute right to believe whatever you wish. To practice your beliefs is less protected depending on how it affects the surrounding community.

The Muslin religion allows you to have more than one wife, but are not allowed that in our society.

You may personally hate a group of people, but you are not allowed to threaten, or attack them.

Islam

Posted by GOG on November 13, 2025, 12:20 pm, in reply to "What are the best arguments FOR atheism?"

There's only one, and it's identical to the argument for theism.

Posted by 7:77 on November 12, 2025, 5:15 am, in reply to "What are the best arguments FOR atheism?"

No argument is capable of proving, conclusively, that either theism or atheism is true and correct. The proposition "god exists" (for most any relevant and coherent definition of the term) is almost certainly unfalsifiable. Some arguments for and against can be shown to be invalid, but that's for reasons of the construction of the argument (that is, it's logically fallacious, etc.) and not its content.

Thus the only valid argument for either side of the theism/atheism binary is that it is what one honestly believes. That's it.

I disagree. The weight of confirmation for theism is quite heavy.

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 13, 2025, 8:29 am, in reply to "There's only one, and it's identical to the argument for theism."

Atheism has no foundation, no merit, no substantiation, no argument, nothing in which to believe. Not really much thought required.

Those old philosophers and theologians contributed quite a foundation for belief.

Not unexpectedly, I disagree.

Posted by 7:77 on November 13, 2025, 12:41 pm, in reply to "I disagree. The weight of confirmation for theism is quite heavy."

"Those old philosophers and theologians contributed quite a foundation for belief."

They certainly were prolific. But the existence of unfalsified alternate explanations and the absence of any conclusively probative argument for or against the existence of god(s) means that theism's foundation, while being larger in terms of volume of argument, is no more weighty in terms of constituting proof. Demonstration of truth-value

Theism itself is merely the mirror opposite of atheism, a simple reflection of one's belief falling on a particular side of a likely-unfalsifiable existential binary.

Not sure "Theism itself is merely the mirror opposite of atheism".

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 15, 2025, 4:52 pm, in reply to "Not unexpectedly, I disagree."

Theism has lot's more nuances.

Oh, well, it's been fun. Love your vocabulary and phrasing.

I did want to share this with you, and I will tell you more about the significance thereof later:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

We have seen strong arguments for the existence of God ...

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 13, 2025, 2:07 pm, in reply to "Not unexpectedly, I disagree."

...

Cosmological
Teleological
Moral
Ontological
Etc.

Beliefs, faith, mysticism, teachings, culture, tradition ... whatever to which one wishes to ascribe one's tenets. Yes, religion is hugely traditional. We believe because our ancestors believed. The religious world is full of churches, synagogues, temples, mosques ... lots of man hours and bricks and mortar devoted to the beliefs.

Yet, they are founded in the otherwise inexplicable phenomenon of creation ... everything we encounter is a creation ... therefore someone or something must have created it ... right? Even the worn-out big bang theory presupposes some kind of creative force. New astrophysical thinking is that the universe has always existed. God is thought to have always existed. One is the creator, the other is the created. Perhaps they are one and the same. Yay, one for Baruch!

What is lacking in atheism is any logical inductive or deductive reasoning that leads to its conclusion.

I would like to see the line of reasoning that gets one to the point of atheism. Where is one's thinking before, and then when it starts? What triggers it? I don't buy the "leap of faith" argument ... there's no faith in atheism upon which to leap. "Leaping" also implies the point from which the leaping is done ... where is that point? Is it disillusionment? Is it anger at God for something they think He caused? That's emotional baggage, not rational thought. An "Aha" moment? What was the "Aha"?

Atheism is to be likened to a perfect vacuum ... nothing there ... nothing to support it. It is also perhaps an illusion. One thinks that they do not believe, but they can never be quite sure because they can't put their finger on why they do not believe. The rational basis for total disbelief just ain't there. In some cases, atheism could just be a trendy rebellious movement, kind-a like anti-American sentiment among certain "progressive" cults, perhaps even ephemeral, subject to reversal when the next stimulus is encountered.

Believers realize that they can't be quite sure, but they don't worry about it because the ultimate paydirt is to be made manifest at some point in the future, and they have the assurance of the now, and that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I respectfully rest my case.

Don't ever lose your awesomeness.

That's the thing, though: no amount of logically-sound reasoning succeeds...

Posted by 7:77 on November 13, 2025, 3:49 pm, in reply to "We have seen strong arguments for the existence of God ..."

...in leading to the conclusion that God exists. All of those arguments fail.

Moreover, the leap of faith on the matter of the existence of god begins at the exact same point, regardless of the "direction" of the outcome. It occurs at the point where deductive logic fails to resolve the question...the point at which both observed evidence and reasoning run out. That point varies by individual, not upon the eventual outcome.

And yet it’s difficult for me to understand how anyone aware

Posted by observer on November 15, 2025, 1:43 pm, in reply to "That's the thing, though: no amount of logically-sound reasoning succeeds..."

of a metaphysical reality can deny the possibility of proof by using only empirical evidence as the determining factor. I do not experience life as a merely scientific effort.

“No metaphysical issue can be definitively proved true through empirical evidence or scientific methods, as metaphysics deals with questions beyond the testable, such as the nature of reality, existence, and consciousness. However, the existence of metaphysical issues themselves can be considered proven, as they are a fundamental part of philosophical inquiry that underpins scientific assumptions, while certain logical or conceptual arguments within metaphysics can be considered valid, even if they do not have a final, provable answer”.

Google

B-b-b-but ...

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 13, 2025, 4:40 pm, in reply to "That's the thing, though: no amount of logically-sound reasoning succeeds..."

... atheists never had any observed evidence and reasoning that would run out, leading to atheism.

Logically, not being able to prove the existence of God is insufficient cause to spring to atheism.

Can you describe the exact moment you became an atheist? Was there some adventitious event? An "Aha" moment out of the blue? Conceptual jump?

As trish said elsewhere herein, "Atheists didn't just wake up one day and say 'there is no god.'".

OTOH, belief in God is much more a cultural and traditional event and gradual process than a quick leap of faith as you suggest. I would venture to say that most believers believe because they were taught to believe.

Beyond that, there is far more stimulus to support belief in a creator than to suport the notion that all this stuff just happened on its own.

The universe is far too complex to have just been a "singularity" that gave birth to itself on a whim billions of years ago.

Oh, well, this has been fun, but it is now wine-thirty.

à bientôt ma chérie

Hmmm...

Posted by 7:77 on November 14, 2025, 4:12 am, in reply to "B-b-b-but ..."

"OTOH, belief in God is much more a cultural and traditional event and gradual process than a quick leap of faith as you suggest."

I would argue that that process acts to reinforce one's immediate leap-of-faith and to give one confidence that while that leap cannot be proven true, it is in fact correct. And I reiterate: that process is the same, regardless of the end result (and post-leap considerations).

My own pathway included a great deal of investigation and reflection...rather more than most, I'd hazard a guess. While I was not raised in a religious household, I was free to investigate it; my parents did their best not to directly influence my thoughts on religious matters. I started doing so in earnest in my early teens, received a decent amount of formal education in religious history and theology (unavoidable in any serious pursuit of philosophy), and have continued to be interested in the atter my entire life. It would take either a professional (that is, clergy or an educator specializing in theology or history of religion) or a particularly devout and academically-inclined believer t exceed the background I have informing my (largely) non-volitional leap of faith to atheism.

I'll address that "argument from complexity" some other time. Spoiler: it doesn't succeed.

Hope you enjoyed the libation...乾杯！

Lack of logical or deductive thought?

Posted by trish on November 13, 2025, 2:50 pm, in reply to "We have seen strong arguments for the existence of God ..."

Oh, come on Mondo. You can do better than that. I am quite sure you know that Atheists didn't just wake up one day and say "there is no god."

If you think that, you are being very short-sighted. I think that non-believers and believers go through a thought process, but come to different conclusions, neither one of which is provable.

Don't contradict my position. Instead, explain in detail ...

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 13, 2025, 3:29 pm, in reply to "Lack of logical or deductive thought? "

... the thought process involved in a person becoming what they think is an atheist. It has to be based on reason, not emotion.

If you can't do that, then you are just pissin' in the wind.

You can't whitewash away my treatise. It may just be a bit above your paygrade.

One can reason into firm belief and quasi-knowledge without witnessing the actual events. When you wake up in the morning and the whole area that you see is set, you can reason that it rained without any doubt. Now, it could have just been the street washer machine, or a fire-fighting airplane dumping water, but you know better.

When you contemplate the gestalt universe, it's pretty damn difficult to reason that there was no creator.

Let's see what you come up with on your own.

Preface: I am a Deist, but asked an atheist friend

Posted by trish on November 14, 2025, 7:31 am, in reply to "Don't contradict my position. Instead, explain in detail ..."

what brought them to their conclusion.

1. There is no testable or reliable means to prove that a god exists. Science has already explained many phenomena previously attributed to a god, and they don't see that progress stopping.

2. If there is a benevolent god who truly wanted a relationship with humans, wouldn't it be more obvious? And, the answer people give is that you have to have faith for that relationship, yet there is no reason for such faith

God cannot be both omniscient and have free will. This is a logical paradox. Plus, an all-knowing, all-seeing god allowing souls to be born into hideous circumstances, with hideous health issues just doesn't add up

Around the world, god is seen differently by different people. Claiming one is better than the other, when no proof exists for any of them, is a futile effort.

He said that, if someday something happened that changed these foundational problems, then he'd reconsider is standpoint.

There was more but this is the gist

This needs some work ... it is patently vague ...

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 15, 2025, 2:25 am, in reply to "Preface: I am a Deist, but asked an atheist friend "

Your friend's reasons examined:

#1

"There is no testable or reliable means to prove that a god exists. Science has already explained many phenomena previously attributed to a god, and they don't see that progress stopping."

A. What is the compelling need to prove that a god exists? To be a true atheist, there should necessarily exist a compelling need to prove a god does not exist. I see no compelling need for either.

B. What specifically has science explained that was previously attributed to a god, specifically in modern times? We're not talking about what the ancient Greeks thought caused thunder. What recent notions about a god have been dispelled by science? Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

#2 Not a valid cause to turn atheistic. Just because god doesn't always meet our expectations of what we expect of him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Parents don't always meet our expectations. We don't always meet our own expectations of ourselves. We sometimes expect from others that which we cannot or will not give to them.

Belief in God has its own rewards. Positive attitude. Gratefulness for the many good things that happen in life. Less worry and stress. It's not a zero sum game. It is open-ended. Like life itself, it is more of a journey than a destination. The destination will come in due time. No need to worry about where or when. It's beyond your control.

Atheism seems to be more a product of confusion and misguided expectations than a rational thinking process.

Your assessment is incorrect

Posted by trish on November 15, 2025, 9:01 am, in reply to "This needs some work ... it is patently vague ..."

Atheists can be quite happy and content, and carry the attitude of gratitude. These things are not contingent on a god existing. They are part of the human emotional DNA.

How can there be misguided expectations when one doesn't believe in god? If you don't believe, you have no expectations of god.

Again and again, we have seen that neither position is provable, better, or easily changed.

You skipped my main counterargument and went straight for the jugular

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 15, 2025, 12:50 pm, in reply to "Your assessment is incorrect"

How emotional!

Your friend's reasons examined:

#1

"There is no testable or reliable means to prove that a god exists. Science has already explained many phenomena previously attributed to a god, and they don't see that progress stopping."

A. What is the compelling need to prove that a god exists? To be a true atheist, there should necessarily exist a compelling need to prove a god does not exist. I see no compelling need for either.

B. What specifically has science explained that was previously attributed to a god, specifically in modern times? We're not talking about what the ancient Greeks thought caused thunder. What recent notions about a god have been dispelled by science? Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god.

#2 Not a valid cause to turn atheistic. Just because god doesn't always meet our expectations of what we expect of him doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Parents don't always meet our expectations. We don't always meet our own expectations of ourselves. We sometimes expect from others that which we cannot or will not give to them.

turn atheistic? Oh, that's rich

Posted by trish on November 15, 2025, 2:51 pm, in reply to "You skipped my main counterargument and went straight for the jugular"

Do you see Atheists out on street corners declaring there is no god? Or building an Atheist meeting "temple."?

They go about their business. Let them. You go about yours. TADA problem solved

Problem evaded, but just let it go.

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 15, 2025, 4:24 pm, in reply to "turn atheistic? Oh, that's rich"

Your answers don't correspond to my questions.

It's OK.

Some answers:

Posted by 7:77 on November 15, 2025, 6:12 am, in reply to "This needs some work ... it is patently vague ..."

"A. What is the compelling need to prove that a god exists? To be a true atheist, there should necessarily exist a compelling need to prove a god does not exist. I see no compelling need for either."

There is indeed no "compelling need" to arrive at either theism or atheism. Faith in one or the other is simply a natural cognitive reaction to considering the question. As for any burden-of-proof on this question, it's not unreasonable to hold that such a burden lies on those that posit such an entity exists, at least when said entity is posited as the "first cause" reason for observable phenomena.

That could be said to imply that atheism is a default state in this matter, but I don't hold that to be the case. Burden of proof is an artifact of logical argumentation, and it doesn't mean that negation of the assertion is a priori until demonstrated otherwise.

"Just because god doesn't always meet our expectations of what we expect of him doesn't mean he doesn't exist."

I concur, but having issues with various aspects of God as presented absolutely is a valid influence towards non-belief. The classic "problem of evil" and the frankly weak and often convoluted apologetics offered in theistic response can quite reasonably suggest to someone that there may well be no such entity. Personally, given the capricious and arbitrary nature of God as presented by the Judeo-Christian tradition, I find that atheism provides me less worry and stress.

thus the reason many are agnostic

Posted by trish on November 13, 2025, 6:59 am, in reply to "There's only one, and it's identical to the argument for theism."

I don't know is a perfectly justified answer

Your ignorance of the evidence is an argument?

Posted by Devo on November 13, 2025, 11:01 am, in reply to "thus the reason many are agnostic"

Wow!!!

you have no proof only faith Devo, but you knew that

Posted by trish on November 13, 2025, 2:46 pm, in reply to "Your ignorance of the evidence is an argument?"

And I understand far more than you comprehend

I have a lot of evidence on my side

Posted by Devo on November 14, 2025, 4:15 am, in reply to "you have no proof only faith Devo, but you knew that"

Evidence is on my side

share some non-faith based evidence. We'll wait

Posted by trish on November 14, 2025, 7:32 am, in reply to "I have a lot of evidence on my side "

Irreducible complexity is one such evidence

Posted by Devo on November 14, 2025, 12:19 pm, in reply to "share some non-faith based evidence. We'll wait"

That's it

a rubics cube is complex. It doesnt prove god

Posted by TRISH on November 14, 2025, 6:06 pm, in reply to "Irreducible complexity is one such evidence "

nor does your woefully insufficient reply

It's the "irreducible" part, not the complexity itself.

Posted by 7:77 on November 15, 2025, 6:17 am, in reply to "a rubics cube is complex. It doesnt prove god"

The Wikipedia article on irreducible complexity is very good, with a comprehensive and objective presentation of the argument as well as an equally detailed and objective presentation of the arguments agaisnt it.

thank you - it's a great article! bookmarked.

Posted by trish on November 15, 2025, 9:03 am, in reply to "It's the "irreducible" part, not the complexity itself."

You got an answer that I provided

Posted by Devo on November 15, 2025, 3:42 am, in reply to "a rubics cube is complex. It doesnt prove god"

How is it insufficient?

Name some, please.

Posted by 7:77 on November 14, 2025, 6:34 am, in reply to "I have a lot of evidence on my side "

Here ...

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 15, 2025, 6:24 pm, in reply to "Name some, please."

https://mb.boardhost.com/ReligionAndEthics/msg/1763254377.html

Thus the reason many are not agnostic. LOL

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 13, 2025, 8:32 am, in reply to "thus the reason many are agnostic"

Works both ways.

Atheism has nothing to go on right now

Posted by Devo on November 13, 2025, 4:39 am, in reply to "There's only one, and it's identical to the argument for theism."

It really does.

and as you have seen, neither does Theism

Posted by TRISH on November 14, 2025, 6:08 pm, in reply to "Atheism has nothing to go on right now "

how long are you going to kick this dead horse

Well, not for some folks ...

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 15, 2025, 5:55 pm, in reply to "and as you have seen, neither does Theism"

... but, for others, it's something to occupy our minds while atheism is kind of a mental void.

without religion coloring their thoughts

Posted by trish on November 16, 2025, 9:46 am, in reply to "Well, not for some folks ..."

they have more mental space for practical considerations

Prove it.

Posted by Mondo Fuego™ on November 19, 2025, 12:14 am, in reply to "without religion coloring their thoughts"

LOL

back at ya

Posted by trish on November 19, 2025, 7:28 am, in reply to "Prove it."

« Back to index

[ Religion and Ethics and Health BBS ]