Strongest argument for atheism?

[Stevil]

I've never been a theist.
Was very surprised when I first came to this forum and heard the best arguments the theists had.
The arguments were very poor philosophical, logical arguments e.g. the cosmological argument, which wholly relies on assumptions and lack of knowledge rather than positive knowledge.
All the theistic "evidence" relies on making the metaphysical realm (concepts) consistent with no tie in to anything physical, nothing ever provable or testable. The scriptures (anecdotal stories) are interpreted well beyond the stories resulting in an interpretation that no longer resembles the scriptures.
It seems people often want an afterlife, or want rules to help them be a good person. They also get confused about the realisation of the self and the emotions they have, to them the posed answers from theistic religion helps them make sense and sounds much more romantic than the cold stories of animated atoms presented by atheist stance.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient deity that presumably transcends time already know the outcome of his work thus rendering the whole universe an exercise in futility?

It wouldn't be futile if he has a purpose in doing it.  Furthermore, a creator God is not necessarily omniscient, especially when it comes to the actions of sentient creatures such as ourselves.  Such a God might see the end result but exactly how it gets there might be unknown.

[squidfetish]

Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient deity that presumably transcends time already know the outcome of his work thus rendering the whole universe an exercise in futility?

Why an exercise in futility?  This alleged God may not be surprised at what happens to us today but the rest of us will be.

I can't help thinking that a being of such awe and grandeur might have better things to do....

But then... I'm not a god, so I don't know how they get their lulz....

It wouldn't be futile if he has a purpose in doing it.  Furthermore, a creator God is not necessarily omniscient, especially when it comes to the actions of sentient creatures such as ourselves.  Such a God might see the end result but exactly how it gets there might be unknown.

Doesn't the common or garden variety god of our major religions have omniscience fitted as standard?  Maybe it has to be subtracted from Him in order to make the point work.
I guess that would mean a great many religious people having to redefine what it is their god is and does in terms of omnipotence and omniscience unless they retreat into some sort of deism.  As ever, the definitions need to be handily fitted with castors. 

It's a bit of a bizarre topic.... 

[xSilverPhinx]

I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution.  By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw.  Anyway, why did you guys become atheists?  

What if someone says they don't base their belief in god on empiricism, but intuition alone?  Do you believe that intuition alone would not be a valid source of knowledge?

But, why do you believe that empiricism is a valid source of knowledge? At some point you must have made the assumption of truth, an axiom or axioms that you base this belief on.

So then what do you base that assumption on?  Maybe personal experience, maybe a choice, maybe intuition alone.

Wouldn't it seem than that intuition would be a valid source of knowledge?  

Atheism is choosing to accept certain sources of knowledge as being more important than others when it comes to some beliefs (my opinion of course)*.  Theism on the other had, people usually don't find any need to reason why they believe in a god, they often just say, it's intuitive....

I trust my intuition, it's served me well in the past, but I don't rely on it alone. The reason I don't believe in gods is the same why you don't believe in unicorns (I'm guessing I'm safe to make that assumption about you). It's not a choice. You don't just suddenly decide to believe in unicorns and boom, there you have it - you're an unicornist.

Some theists I've talked to on other forums have said that they can't imagine their worlds with out god. Their gods are very self-evident to them, and can't fathom how anybody can be an atheist.

Gods to me are not self-evident, just as unicorns aren't to you.

And that's where theists come in. All I have to go on are their claims of what their gods are like, and all their claims are lacking. They're better explained and make more sense when analysed psychologically and scientifically. They try to fit their explanations into a picture to try and explain it to the best of their ability, but they'r emore like non-ansers than actual answers.

One example to illustrate my point: the myth of Hades and Persephone.

http://www.infoplease.com/cig/mythology/hades-takes-wife-persephone.html

It explains the changing seasons, in elaborate detail...but does it?

To anybody who knows basic geology, astronomy and why the Earth goes through those seasons, it's a ridiculous claim. It's elaborate, it explains why the seasons change, but it's a non answer. You could basically make up any story and have it just as explained: http://www.shmoop.com/persephone-demeter-hades/similar-myths.html

God did it is essentially the same. Unless you can demonstrate with more understanding, some claims can be dismissed without second thought. Maybe it is a bit of arrogance...but just a bit    

[Pharaoh Cat]

Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient deity that presumably transcends time already know the outcome of his work thus rendering the whole universe an exercise in futility?

Why an exercise in futility?  This alleged God may not be surprised at what happens to us today but the rest of us will be.

I can't help thinking that a being of such awe and grandeur might have better things to do....

Oh, you meant an exercise in futility for God, not for us.  Gotcha.

For an omniscient being, the universe fully known in all space and all time might be like a splendid work of art, pleasant to contemplate.  If omnipotent as well, this being would presumably enjoy our agonies as much as our ecstacies.

Omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect love cannot co-exist in the same being, given the reality of suffering.  One of the three attributes must be dropped, lest logical consistency be violated.  I often wish someone would propose an omniscient, omnipotent God who doesn't in the least love us.  Or an omniscient God of perfect love who isn't omnipotent and who thus is doing the best it can, woefully inadequate as that best might be, especially for the many, many creatures who have suffered the torments of life at its worst.  At least these religions wouldn't offend me from a logical perspective, however much they might offend me from an empirical one.

[yodachoda]

I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution.  By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw. 

I challenge this point. For purposes of full disclosure, I'm a Christian who accepts evolution.  Why could a creator God not set the original conditions of the cosmos, including natural laws that guide the evolutionary process? And then why could that creator God not manifest himself in some manner to conscious, intelligent creatures such as us who ultimately evolved according to the laws the creator instituted? 

You do understand that if we go back 3.8 billion years ago, and let evolution occur again, the outcome could be totally different right?  We might all be 2 feet tall with four arms and four legs.  We might only be the 2nd most intelligent species with the smartest species being a dolphin like species underwater.  There might have been many extinctions and life on earth today would consist of only bacterial life. 

The only reason we exist is because a fish walked on land and because an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.  Also, no intelligent mind would create life through evolution.  Here are the reasons:

1.  Creates strong appearance that the creator doesn't exist, meaning he'd have to know that by using evolution few people would believe in him once humanity discovers evolution.

2.  Evolution is cruel and requires mass death.

3.  Evolution is wasteful.

4.  Evolution results in suboptimal design since you can only make tiny changes to what's already there and can't go back to the drawing board.

Evolution makes perfect sense if it's not God-guided and its purely natural mindless processes.  It makes little sense if it was a tool used by a God with the specific goal of creating humans.  Also, if he guided it, then why is it that we can observe it in the lab and it appears to be a mindless natural process? 

[yodachoda]

Also, let me add, that randomness is a real phenomena in nature.  For example, it's random whether you're born male or female, just like a coinflip.  Mutation frequencies are also random. 

Also, genetic drift is random.  And say you have a mouse and it's heading down a path towards a wall.  Once it hits the wall, it's random whether the mouse moves left or right.

And randomness drastically affects evolution.  Random means unpredictable and uncontrollable, therefore God can't control evolution therefore if he exists he's completely unimportant and may not even be aware that we humans exist. 

[yodachoda]

I've never been a theist.
Was very surprised when I first came to this forum and heard the best arguments the theists had.
The arguments were very poor philosophical, logical arguments e.g. the cosmological argument, which wholly relies on assumptions and lack of knowledge rather than positive knowledge.
All the theistic "evidence" relies on making the metaphysical realm (concepts) consistent with no tie in to anything physical, nothing ever provable or testable. The scriptures (anecdotal stories) are interpreted well beyond the stories resulting in an interpretation that no longer resembles the scriptures.
It seems people often want an afterlife, or want rules to help them be a good person. They also get confused about the realisation of the self and the emotions they have, to them the posed answers from theistic religion helps them make sense and sounds much more romantic than the cold stories of animated atoms presented by atheist stance.

A common theist argument is one's like you described, that it would be awful if God does not exist therefore he must exist.  Well, if the reason you believe is because it makes you happy and not because it's true, why not just take drugs instead? 

[yodachoda]

I think those who think evolution and God are both true at the same time are in denial or don't properly understand evolution.  By God I mean a personal God and not a deistic God btw.  Anyway, why did you guys become atheists? 

What if someone says they don't base their belief in god on empiricism, but intuition alone?  Do you believe that intuition alone would not be a valid source of knowledge?

But, why do you believe that empiricism is a valid source of knowledge? At some point you must have made the assumption of truth, an axiom or axioms that you base this belief on.

So then what do you base that assumption on?  Maybe personal experience, maybe a choice, maybe intuition alone.

Wouldn't it seem than that intuition would be a valid source of knowledge?   

Atheism is choosing to accept certain sources of knowledge as being more important than others when it comes to some beliefs (my opinion of course)*.  Theism on the other had, people usually don't find any need to reason why they believe in a god, they often just say, it's intuitive....

I think science is by far the best way to find truth.  People who think they have found truth on intuition alone are probably wrong IMO.  If your intuition is different from someone else, which is common since it's intuition, then only one of you can be right.  Of all the religions in the world, they all can't be right.  There's only one truth out there and it's the same truth for every single human being.  Science can find truth because of the peer review process and very rigid procedures.  If you're in China and pick up a scientific journal written by Americans, you can follow their procedure and you should get the exact same results.  Also, I don't think scientists have a hidden social agenda like religious people do, so the truths scientists uncover aren't biased.  So I believe scientists when they say evolution is true and the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion years old and life first appeared 3.7 billion years ago, and everything science tells me makes me think "the universe makes perfect sense if there is no God and mindless processes produced everything". 

[xSilverPhinx]

The only theistic argument for theistic evolution that makes sense to me is when they say that god set up the conditions and that we were not the purpose, but the result of the process. Looks a bit more like deism to me, but these beliefs do overlap in some cases.

There's one book call 'Finding Darwin's God' by Kenneth Miller (who is a Catholic and was an expert witness fighting against teaching ID in the Dover Trails.) I haven't read it though, I just thought I'd mention it.

[Pharaoh Cat]

The only theistic argument for theistic evolution that makes sense to me is when they say that god set up the conditions and that we were not the purpose, but the result of the process.

I figure trilobites were the purpose.  God saw the trilobites, was satisfied, and went away to do something else, without bothering to hit the off switch on the experiment.

[Tank]

The only theistic argument for theistic evolution that makes sense to me is when they say that god set up the conditions and that we were not the purpose, but the result of the process.

I figure trilobites were the purpose.  God saw the trilobites, was satisfied, and went away to do something else, without bothering to hit the off switch on the experiment.

Nope. I strongly disagree, had to be the dinosaurs and T-Rex in particular. 

[squidfetish]

Wouldn't an omnipotent, omniscient deity that presumably transcends time already know the outcome of his work thus rendering the whole universe an exercise in futility?

Why an exercise in futility?  This alleged God may not be surprised at what happens to us today but the rest of us will be.

I can't help thinking that a being of such awe and grandeur might have better things to do....

Oh, you meant an exercise in futility for God, not for us.  Gotcha.

For an omniscient being, the universe fully known in all space and all time might be like a splendid work of art, pleasant to contemplate.  If omnipotent as well, this being would presumably enjoy our agonies as much as our ecstacies.

Omniscience, omnipotence, and perfect love cannot co-exist in the same being, given the reality of suffering.  One of the three attributes must be dropped, lest logical consistency be violated.  I often wish someone would propose an omniscient, omnipotent God who doesn't in the least love us.  Or an omniscient God of perfect love who isn't omnipotent and who thus is doing the best it can, woefully inadequate as that best might be, especially for the many, many creatures who have suffered the torments of life at its worst.  At least these religions wouldn't offend me from a logical perspective, however much they might offend me from an empirical one.

I hear that! 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

You do understand that if we go back 3.8 billion years ago, and let evolution occur again, the outcome could be totally different right?  We might all be 2 feet tall with four arms and four legs.  We might only be the 2nd most intelligent species with the smartest species being a dolphin like species underwater.  There might have been many extinctions and life on earth today would consist of only bacterial life.  

I don't know if this is true or not. It is a hypothesis, and one that cannot be tested, since we cannot go back 3.8 billion years.  There are atheists on this board that argue in favor of determinism, which essentially means that given the original conditions that did exist, this outcome was predictable, if we had access to all knowledge.  I'm inclined to accept determinism within certain parameters.  I think that once human beings came on the scene, that it is not always possible to determine what they will do, even if one had access to all knowledge. But that's another topic. My rebuttal to your position is that all you have given is an untestable hypothesis.  

The only reason we exist is because a fish walked on land and because an asteroid killed the dinosaurs.  Also, no intelligent mind would create life through evolution.  Here are the reasons:

1.  Creates strong appearance that the creator doesn't exist, meaning he'd have to know that by using evolution few people would believe in him once humanity discovers evolution.

2.  Evolution is cruel and requires mass death.

3.  Evolution is wasteful.

4.  Evolution results in suboptimal design since you can only make tiny changes to what's already there and can't go back to the drawing board.

Again, you have given an untestable hypothesis.  I am not so sure that an intelligent mind would not use evolution.  In fact, it may be that a world in which there is stress and conflict is the only way in which to develop creatures with a moral sense.  That may be a limitation on the creator.  So the initial conditions were set, and the creator's purpose was to create people just like us, something that can only occur through evolution.  Perhaps we are the cake he intended to bake, and he had to put the mixture in an oven to do it.  

Evolution makes perfect sense if it's not God-guided and its purely natural mindless processes.  It makes little sense if it was a tool used by a God with the specific goal of creating humans.  Also, if he guided it, then why is it that we can observe it in the lab and it appears to be a mindless natural process?  

I disagree that it makes little sense if it was a tool used by God.  If the current world is what he intended, with sentient creatures placed under the stress of seemingly random events so that they would develop a moral sense, then he accomplished his goal.  What we have is a process that resulted in intelligent creatures, who generally have a sense of morality and right/wrong, the majority of whom have faith of some kind in a god, and who can have interesting discussions like this.  If the creator determined that this is the only way to create beings like us, just as there may only be one particular way to bake a cake, then he accomplished his purpose.

[xSilverPhinx]

The only theistic argument for theistic evolution that makes sense to me is when they say that god set up the conditions and that we were not the purpose, but the result of the process.

I figure trilobites were the purpose.  God saw the trilobites, was satisfied, and went away to do something else, without bothering to hit the off switch on the experiment.

No purpose ever, not from the beginning of life till now. It's all about the best solution that came from dynamic systems. Pure results.

This of course makes the whole 'created in god's image' idea kind of unlikely, since that indicates purpose. Unless this god already knew that something like us would walk the planet for the blink of an evolutionary eye.

Like I said before, I think this idea is much more compatible with deism. Reconciling it with a sophisticated theistic belief can be tricky.

Bruce, do you place much weight on the idea of original sin and how do you reconcile it with evolution? I think you might have already answered this but my memory isn't what it used to be.