1. Comment #107989 by Rtambree on January 5, 2008 at 7:11 pm

7. Simple common sense.

Other Comments by Rtambree

2. Comment #107990 by Goldy on January 5, 2008 at 7:17 pm

One needs a reason?

Other Comments by Goldy

3. Comment #107996 by Rtambree on January 5, 2008 at 7:44 pm

Yeah, ok, Freud was a crazy old man.

Other Comments by Rtambree

4. Comment #108000 by GodlessHeathen on January 5, 2008 at 8:05 pm

Rtambree, if that sense were common, the whole argument would be moot, wouldn't it?

I've never liked the "enormity of evil" argument. Good and evil are subjective views. I'd replace that one with something a bit more objective, like: No one can agree on what "god" is. Which frelling god would I believe in if I were to believe in one (or more)? =^_^=

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

5. Comment #108005 by Kerry M on January 5, 2008 at 8:09 pm

*Oh, nobody wants to thrash on about Freud?*

Sung to the tune of "What's Love Got to Do With It?":

What's Freud got to do with it?
What's Freud but an obsolete old gasbag?


Other Comments by Kerry M

6. Comment #108008 by Rtambree on January 5, 2008 at 8:15 pm

5. Comment #108000 by GodlessHeathen

>Rtambree, if that sense were common, the whole argument would be moot, wouldn't it?

Actually, it's very common. Almost all life on Earth doesn't believe in any God. :)


Other Comments by Rtambree

7. Comment #108015 by robotaholic on January 5, 2008 at 8:26 pm

it really shouldn't be an "argument" like in #1 - if someone posits something it's their obligation to give some evidence - none to date has been given in my opine- and I don't like #4, what if god is evil? or like godlessheathen said - evil is just subjective- and there are many more than 6 - like :

#7: I posess a prefrontal cortex

#8: Religion is Self-Contradictory

#9: Gods and Believers Behave Immorally

#10: the absence of good reasons for being a theist

#11: The Concept of God is Incoherent

I can go on and on and on and on - in fact I'm gonna write a book for children :)

Other Comments by robotaholic

8. Comment #108016 by Matt H. on January 5, 2008 at 8:29 pm

One does not need any reasons to be an atheist.
However, one needs many reasons to find theism more rational.

Other Comments by Matt H.

9. Comment #108018 by Rtambree on January 5, 2008 at 8:34 pm

Theist responses:

1. The opinion that the arguments are weak is subjective. In any case, God wants you to have faith as it's a test, so He's not going to offer much proof.
2. God is not of this universe, so we can't see Him. It's a test - see #1.
3. God is mysterious and our puny brains can't cope with it, just like they can't cope with higher dimensional space, quantum mechanics, blah blah
4. Evil proves the Bible, because it proves the Devil exists, just as the Bible says.
5. The mediocrity of Mankind is explained in Genesis - dust, rib, fallen, sinful, blah blah.
6. That we all have exactly those wishes proves that there's truth to them.

And so on - there's always a response they can come back with.

Other Comments by Rtambree

10. Comment #108020 by robotaholic on January 5, 2008 at 8:36 pm

then Rtambree I would say it's your god, your rules, YOU go to hell :) (not to you of course)

Other Comments by robotaholic

11. Comment #108029 by Rtambree on January 5, 2008 at 9:03 pm

The argument that seems to make them squirm most is not so much the evil (as that's "free will", or "Satan", etc), but the natural disaster argument (Lisbon Earthquake, Tsunami, Katrina, volcanoes, etc). Why God would indiscriminately kill babies, the devout as well as infidels, doesn't fit as well into the theist worldview as the other counter-arugments above.

Sure, they can always confabulate some half-baked response that permits their cognitive dissonace to perpetuate, but I've always found it to be the argument that gives them the most problems.

Other Comments by Rtambree

12. Comment #108034 by Richard Morgan on January 5, 2008 at 9:33 pm

I read this book (in French) a few months back. It was a very disappointing read. Absolutely NOT in the same league as Michel ONFRAY, whose "Atheist Manifesto" is a "must-read".

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

13. Comment #108037 by Spinoza on January 5, 2008 at 9:47 pm

There's only one good reason to be an atheist.

1. Because it's true.


*the upshot of this is that if it turned out atheism were false, there would be no good reason to be atheist... even if there were good 'pragmatic' reasons for "acting atheist".

Other Comments by Spinoza

14. Comment #108041 by kraut on January 5, 2008 at 10:08 pm

"5. The mediocrity of mankind."

what do you expect of a god that was created in mankinds own image?

Other Comments by kraut

15. Comment #108048 by GodlessHeathen on January 5, 2008 at 10:49 pm

8. Comment #108008 by Rtambree on January 5, 2008 at 8:15 pm

---

Actually, it's very common. Almost all life on Earth doesn't believe in any God. :)

Ha! I stand corrected =^_^=

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

16. Comment #108049 by LorienRyan on January 5, 2008 at 10:57 pm

Best reason to be an atheist...

Lack of evidence otherwise.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

17. Comment #108054 by jonjermey on January 5, 2008 at 11:19 pm

Just a pedantic point: 'enormity' doesn't mean bigness, it means evil. So 'the enormity of evil' means 'the evil of evil'. 'Ubiquity' would be a better word.

Other Comments by jonjermey

18. Comment #108060 by Goldy on January 6, 2008 at 12:39 am

e·nor·mi·ty (-nôrm-t)
n. pl. e·nor·mi·ties
1. The quality of passing all moral bounds; excessive wickedness or outrageousness.
2. A monstrous offense or evil; an outrage.
3. Usage Problem Great size; immensity: "Beyond that, [Russia's] sheer enormity offered a defense against invaders that no European nation enjoyed" W. Bruce Lincoln.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[French énormité, from Old French, from Latin normits, from normis, unusual, enormous; see enormous.]
Usage Note: Enormity is frequently used to refer simply to the property of being great in size or extent, but many would prefer that enormousness (or a synonym such as immensity) be used for this general sense and that enormity be limited to situations that demand a negative moral judgment, as in Not until the war ended and journalists were able to enter Cambodia did the world really become aware of the enormity of Pol Pot's oppression. Fifty-nine percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of enormity as a synonym for immensity in the sentence At that point the engineers sat down to design an entirely new viaduct, apparently undaunted by the enormity of their task. This distinction between enormity and enormousness has not always existed historically, but nowadays many observe it. Writers who ignore the distinction, as in the enormity of the President's election victory or the enormity of her inheritance, may find that their words have cast unintended aspersions or evoked unexpected laughter.

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enormity. Jonjermey, I dof my hat to you. I never knew the evil part of it!

Other Comments by Goldy

19. Comment #108061 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 12:41 am

Two compelling reasons for believing in God:

1. there is sufficient evidence for belief in God to be plausible: the fact that that which begins to exist requires a cause external to itself, the anthropic principle, the implausibility of life having originated spontaneously from inert matter (etc.)

2. the absurdity of life if we are merely the products of a purposeless biological process of adaptation. Most of the contributors on this site are, like Dawkins, "cultural Christians". You are tapping into the reservoir of purpose and meaning established through centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition and/or Socratic rationalism whose aim was to gain access to the transcendent "Good" beyond nature. Though you will never admit it, purposeful rationalism flies in the face of thoroughgoing acceptance of natural selection.

Two reasons for being a Christian theist:
1. The stunning uniqueness of Jesus Christ as he comes across in the four gospels, the historical reliability of which has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

2. The paradigmatic event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ - not only a one-off event but a declaration of God's intent for the whole of creation. God's life-affirming purposes for nature will prevail, whatever havoc human beings have wreaked or ever will wreak on the planet that they have been made custodians of.

Other Comments by ADH

20. Comment #108062 by Goldy on January 6, 2008 at 12:41 am

Again, I muct say there are no six reasons for my athiesm. I am because there is nothing else I can be. Only 1 reason, a reason which is there for all to see, a reason which explains all.
Damn, I sound way too religious. Bloody strong Dutch beer...

Other Comments by Goldy

21. Comment #108063 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 12:45 am

"a reason which is there for all to see, a reason which explains all.
Damn, I sound way too religious"

You're right there Goldy. That is a very religious statement. Be careful what you drink!

Other Comments by ADH

22. Comment #108064 by Goldy on January 6, 2008 at 12:49 am

OK, I'm game

1. there is sufficient evidence for belief in God to be plausible: the fact that that which begins to exist requires a cause external to itself, the anthropic principle, the implausibility of life having originated from inert matter (etc.)

Proof? Or even slight evidence (not the Bible or the Koran or the Torah)

2. the absurdity of life if we are merely the products of a purposeless biological process of adaptation. Most of the contributors on this site are, like Dawkins, "cultural Christians". You are tapping into the reservoir of purpose and meaning established through centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition and/or Socratic rationalism whose aim was to gain access to the transcendent "Good" beyond nature. Though you will never admit it, purposeful rationalism flies in the face of thoroughgoing acceptance of natural selection.

So the gods make it all absurd? And we have to believe in them for this reason? If we are not cultural Christians (those of us brought up in a culturally Christian country) then what are we? Ever read the letters page in the Telegraph?

Two reasons for being a Christian theist:

1. The stunning uniqueness of Jesus Christ as he comes across in the four gospels, the historical reliability of which has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

And Vishnu, Zeus, Mithras, Zoroaster, Thor, Odin, etc, etc are what? Chopped liver?

2. The paradigmatic event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ - not only a one-off event but a declaration of God's intent for the whole of creation. God's life-affirming purposes for nature will prevail, whatever havoc human beings have wreaked or ever will wreak on the planet that they have been made custodians of.

Been done before. Have a gander at the Pagan Christ thread. Horus was also killed and brought back. Where is the uniqueness to this event? And, as we have been told, many of the havoc wrreaked on this earth is due to the "Fall" where a woman listened to a snake (who walked at that time) and ate the fruit of knowledge (like we knew that would never happen - old literary trick...Homer used it too) and made man eat the same. All creation had to suffer for that - note ALL creation, even the creatures that had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Nice God you follow!

Other Comments by Goldy

23. Comment #108065 by Goldy on January 6, 2008 at 12:51 am

You're right there Goldy. That is a very religious statement. Be careful what you drink!

Only...hurrrp!...the true...hic!...spirit! (Collapses on the floor....)

Other Comments by Goldy

24. Comment #108066 by Goldy on January 6, 2008 at 12:54 am

the implausibility of life having originated from inert matter

Sorry, just had to come back to this. OK, in Genesis, we are taught that God made man of clay (or mud or dirt or whatever the hell you like), fashioned it and breathed life into it. This is not implausible? And, come to think of it, aren't you just contradicting Genesis?
Told you that beer was strong! 10%...hic!
Edit - just had a check and yep - we're made of inert stuff

7 And God formed the man [of] dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul.

Mind you, you are right - bloody impausible. Wait til we get to the atoms argument! ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

25. Comment #108068 by Goldy on January 6, 2008 at 1:00 am

We don't need to justify being atheists any more than we need to justify eating and drinking

Exactly!

Other Comments by Goldy

26. Comment #108069 by Goldy on January 6, 2008 at 1:02 am

Sorry ADH, me again

the historical reliability of which has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

You willing to put money on this? There are many arguments against what you say....

Other Comments by Goldy

27. Comment #108070 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 1:04 am

Goldy, I didn't expect you to be convinced :-)

I edited the comment about life originating from inert matter to "the implausibility of life originating SPONTANEOUSLY from inert matter". My other comments stand. As for Horus and Homer, given the quintessential nature of the truth of the Fall and Redemption, it would be surprising if hints of this were not scattered through pagan mythology. They echo the Fall, and they prefigure the Incarnation (echoes before rather than after the event?). Same goes for Mithras, Prometheus, Gilgamesh, Isis, etc.

Other Comments by ADH

28. Comment #108072 by ADH on January 6, 2008 at 1:07 am

"There are many arguments against what you say...."

I know there are Goldy. And there are many arguments which support it. Are you willing to explore them?

Other Comments by ADH

29. Comment #108073 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 1:16 am

Comment #108070 by ADH

They echo the Fall, and they prefigure the Incarnation (echoes before rather than after the event?). Same goes for Mithras, Prometheus, Gilgamesh, Isis, etc.

The MPAA would love you, "No your honour, we didn't copy [Perrault,Grimm,Anderson] these merely prefigure our member's [Snow White,Little Mermaid] pictures. In fact we are claiming copyright on [Perrault,Grimm,Anderson] and demand that the authors pay us our due fees"

Other Comments by epeeist

30. Comment #108076 by Geoff on January 6, 2008 at 1:34 am

ADH:

Two reasons for being a Christian theist:
1. The stunning uniqueness of Jesus Christ as he comes across in the four gospels, the historical reliability of which has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Don't you mean the stunning uniqueness of the four different Jesuses in the gospels, the historical reliability of which are on a par with the Narnia tales?

Other Comments by Geoff

31. Comment #108077 by Jon_Sociologist on January 6, 2008 at 1:35 am

ADH:

the implausibility of life originating SPONTANEOUSLY from inert matter

So let me get this straight ADH. You think it's implausible that life "spontaneously" sprang from matter, but some omnipotent omniscient god springing from nothing seems plausible to you?

Other Comments by Jon_Sociologist

32. Comment #108078 by Galactor on January 6, 2008 at 1:46 am

21. Comment #108061 by ADH

Two compelling reasons for believing in God

I suppose that makes it 7 - 2 then.

there is sufficient evidence for belief in God to be plausible

Yep, there is tons of the stuff. All those people going to church and buying bibles for one thing. However, you probably meant "evidence for the existence of God" as opposed to what you actually wrote and it is this with which I disagree. There is a paucity of evidence. Your argument:

... the fact that that which begins to exist requires a cause external to itself ...

does nothing to link the existence of (any) God - and certainly the one that you believe in - with the fact that the origin of matter is not factually known. No, we don't know for sure how matter came into being but so what? That hardly leads to being able to make any conclusions, does it now?

And another thing:

... the implausibility of life having originated spontaneously from inert matter

If you find it implausible then you're in the mindframe of "the argument from personal incredulity". But in fact, life didn't originate spontaneously now, did it? You've not been learning from your interchanges on this site, have you?

.. the absurdity of life if we are merely the products of a purposeless biological process of adaptation

More argument from personal incredulity. "I can't accept that we are just specks of dust on a planet in a galaxy in a universe. I'm so special that there must be a reason for my conscience. I've grown up in a world where I've been brought up to believe in a being that supervises everything. Aaah! That makes sense. There's my answer!" The scientific evidence we have makes it possible that there is no relevance in posing the question "why are we here?"

Most of the contributors on this site are, like Dawkins, "cultural Christians". You are tapping into the reservoir of purpose and meaning established through centuries of Judeo-Christian tradition and/or Socratic rationalism whose aim was to gain access to the transcendent "Good" beyond nature.

Not that I fully understand or accept what you write but in much of your writing, the first thing that comes to mind is "so what?" What difference does it make what ones background is to whether this has any bearing on the existence of God? For the sake of argument, let's presume that the world abandons all religions in the next hundred years. It might well be the case that we still celebrate Christmas and take time off during the "Christian" holidays but so what? This is our culture and background but it will still make no difference to the question of the existence of God, now will it?

That all makes it 7 - 0.

Other Comments by Galactor

33. Comment #108088 by Quetzalcoatl on January 6, 2008 at 2:43 am

ADH-

Two reasons for being a Christian theist:
1. The stunning uniqueness of Jesus Christ as he comes across in the four gospels, the historical reliability of which has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

2. The paradigmatic event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ - not only a one-off event but a declaration of God's intent for the whole of creation. God's life-affirming purposes for nature will prevail, whatever havoc human beings have wreaked or ever will wreak on the planet that they have been made custodians of.

Historical reliability of the Gospels? Really? How can you type that with a straight face given the contradictions between them?

And the so-called resurrection of Jesus is hardly a one-off event- many such claims have been made. How can you prove that only yours is genuine?

And what exactly are "God's life-affirming purposes for nature"?

As for Horus and Homer, given the quintessential nature of the truth of the Fall and Redemption, it would be surprising if hints of this were not scattered through pagan mythology. They echo the Fall, and they prefigure the Incarnation (echoes before rather than after the event?). Same goes for Mithras, Prometheus, Gilgamesh, Isis, etc.

This argument is fallacious, given that exactly the same argument can be made by "pagan" religions about your beliefs. What makes yours correct? Weight of numbers? Why are you then not a Muslim?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

34. Comment #108096 by notsobad on January 6, 2008 at 3:06 am

"why are we here?"

"Plastics, assholes!"

--Carlin

.. the absurdity of life if we are merely the products of a purposeless biological process of adaptation

Get a girlfriend and some hobbies.

Other Comments by notsobad

35. Comment #108104 by Galactor on January 6, 2008 at 3:18 am

21. Comment #108061 by ADH

I wondered how anyone could be remotely "compelled" by these arguments. You need to do some serious study in science and logic and make sure you understand what it's all about. I am sure that you would be compelled to draw other conclusions. Your arguments are somewhat lacking in any foundation or substance. There's this gem:

The paradigmatic event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ - not only a one-off event but a declaration of God's intent for the whole of creation.

Talk about declaring something by fiat. I would agree that it would add much credence to the bible if it could be shown that this event actually took place but if any real evidence was available, we (atheists) wouldn't be concluding that it's a crock of dogs doo-doos, now would we? ADH's statement is fatuous. "JC is bone fide because it says so in the bible. The bible is factual."

You really haven't gotten very far with your powers of reasoning if you feel that this is a "compelling" argument. Surely you realise that atheists are those that have drawn the conclusion that God is highly improbable for reasons that your "argument" is devoid of - the lack of any evidence?

Other Comments by Galactor

36. Comment #108111 by Vinelectric on January 6, 2008 at 3:40 am

The monotheisms teach that the purpose of life is:

1. To worship a god who doesn't really need it.
2. A "test of faith" although the creator knows how it is goin to end anyway ...or...
3. To grow in virtue i.e God is either unwilling or unable to create morally "mature" beings.

I remember being so disgusted by such claims I decided it was irresponsible to bring children into the world to entertain this god!

Other Comments by Vinelectric

37. Comment #108117 by Vinelectric on January 6, 2008 at 3:55 am

Godlessheathen and robotaholic

Some forms of evil may be subjective but one visit to your local hospice or cancer unit should convince you that evil is too manifest in this world for the theodicist to ignore.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

38. Comment #108118 by Floris Meijer on January 6, 2008 at 4:01 am

Another good reason:
Not having to use retorical tricks to explain everyday occurences.

Other Comments by Floris Meijer

39. Comment #108124 by Vadjong on January 6, 2008 at 4:30 am

Well thanks, guys !
By blasting ADH clean out of our oasis with your clear-headedness, I picture him/her now somewhere on her/his knees, praying for our souls, as s/he is compelled to love us anyway.
We win every single 'argument' (because that is the easy part), but all it does is strengthen the belief that it's just a test (the more right we are, the more counterproductive).
This 'test of faith' meme always trumps reason, precisely because it is of an anti-scientific mindset. Let's call it the Catch-Mother-Theresa stratagem.
So if we cann't use logic or evidence, how do we unfurl this loop ?

Other Comments by Vadjong

40. Comment #108126 by JemyM on January 6, 2008 at 4:38 am

My greatest reason for believing the Bible is written by men in the bronze age is that the concerns and values within are very similiar to what I would assume was great concerns and values of people in the bronze age. Concerns for the seventh day on the week, what direction you need to pray to, how you should have sex and who you should give your gold to is obviously not the concerns and values of an omnipotent, everlasting creator. When I read the Quran, Tripitaka and Mahabharata and compare them with social psychology and political philosophy they do not appear divine at all. In fact, it's core values that actually have any moral standing theese days, are the same values that our greatest philosophers came up with before those holy books were written.

However... THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM. My greatest point, is that if there is a creator, a God, or something more out there, not a single one of our world religions have anything in them that are more valuable than whatever else we humans can come up with.

Other Comments by JemyM

41. Comment #108129 by elfinabout on January 6, 2008 at 4:46 am

This thread is moot - I am atheist (note - it's not a noun - I am not "an" atheist, I'm a-theist - without theism) by default, simply because there is no evidence whatsoever to support any other worldview.

@ADH:

Actually, I'm rather hoping that you pop back to this thread:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2105,n,n

And respond to the comments there. You challenged people for citations and evidence, and they provided you with copious quantities of both. You seem to have gone silent there now.

Other Comments by elfinabout

42. Comment #108131 by AfraidToDie on January 6, 2008 at 4:53 am

And the number one reason to be an atheist: Sex is sooooo good now that I don't think someone above is watching :-)

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

43. Comment #108133 by robotaholic on January 6, 2008 at 4:57 am

wow Vinelectric, that was awesome.

Other Comments by robotaholic

44. Comment #108139 by Veronique on January 6, 2008 at 5:13 am

I suspect that the division of the human population into atheist and non-atheist should squash all argument.:-) Not to mention the other atheistic species.

We might not have the (human) numbers but we have reason and the rest of the species. In fact we far outnumber the theists:-) Hahaha. And that is important in living proper moral and theist free lives.

Long may we (all) live!!
V

Other Comments by Veronique

45. Comment #108140 by GodlessHeathen on January 6, 2008 at 5:23 am

41. Comment #108117 by Vinelectric on January 6, 2008 at 3:55 am

---

Godlessheathen and robotaholic

Some forms of evil may be subjective but one visit to your local hospice or cancer unit should convince you that evil is too manifest in this world for the theodicist to ignore.

It would require a god striking people down with such horrors for it to be evil, even subjectively. Cancer just is, it can't be moral because it has no will of its own and so it's neither good nor evil. I still can't make the argument of the "enormity of evil" without suggesting a belief in a superbeing.

Unless you mean that the "enormity of evil" is a reason to start questioning the B.S. of monotheistic religions, from the point of view of a theist... then I think see your point.

Theodicean philosophies are all about saying "god is good despite all this icky evil", though.

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

46. Comment #108149 by Steve Zara on January 6, 2008 at 5:43 am

2. The paradigmatic event of the resurrection of Jesus Christ - not only a one-off event but a declaration of God's intent for the whole of creation.

Some predictions based on your knowledge of this declaration would be useful....

Other Comments by Steve Zara

47. Comment #108151 by BigJohn on January 6, 2008 at 5:51 am

Reasons for being an atheist:

#1) I was born that way.

#2) ahh...er...umm...well...see #1

Other Comments by BigJohn

48. Comment #108153 by Galactor on January 6, 2008 at 6:01 am

More evidence of a lack of design and the inate imperfection of a designer. It now seems, given Veronique's avatar, that even cats require their vision to be corrected. How's that for perfection?

Other Comments by Galactor

49. Comment #108154 by epeeist on January 6, 2008 at 6:02 am

Comment #108140 by GodlessHeathen

It would require a god striking people down with such horrors for it to be evil, even subjectively. Cancer just is, it can't be moral because it has no will of its own and so it's neither good nor evil.

As you say, you can't really apply the concepts of good and evil to cancer. However, if god created us then he surely created the cancers that strike us down.

One thing I haven't heard raised though - why did god inflict such evil on us? Is he frightened of what we might become if we didn't have to spend some much time combating it?

Other Comments by epeeist

50. Comment #108157 by Corylus on January 6, 2008 at 6:14 am

It might be useful here to bring in the distinction between 'moral evil' (what we traditionally think of when we use the term 'evil' i.e. that of harmful actions) and that of 'natural evil'.

'Natural evil' is just a fancy way of saying 'shit happens' (like cancer). However, we do need to look at people's misfortunes (whether caused by others or not) when we assess whether a benevolent God exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil

Other Comments by Corylus