Philosophical arguments against the existence of God

[Archaeopteryx]

Why?

Because you're once again pretending that you hold some sort of moral high ground.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ahh..ok.

What do you suggest as a remedy for this predicament that I am in?

I don't know at this point. Any advice previously given seems to have been ignored.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have to ask you because you are an atheist. You don't believe God exists who would ground objective moral values and duties and without whom there is no transcendent objective grounds for said values or obligations.

We use the same thing you use, our own sense of morality.

Every time you make a moral judgment you assume there is some standard by which one judges a particular act, say acid burning, to be wrong or IOW a departure from the way a homo sapien should be treated.

How do you determine if God's commandments are moral? What standard do you use?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because a person's face is not meant to have acid thrown on it. That is not God's perfect will for us. Our faces were not designed to be recepticals for battery acid. He did not make our faces for that purpose.

How do you know that God's will is moral?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am a Christian. This means I am a follower of Jesus Christ. Being such, just ask yourself if Jesus would ever throw battery acid in someone's face.

The answer to that question will be my answer.

How do you know that Jesus is moral? If you aren't able to judge morality for yourself, then you could be following an immoral leader, for all you know.

 

[ecco]

Philosophers of religion as a part of their discipline, sometimes engage in the formulation and defense of arguments for the existence of God.

We are aware of this.

However, it is oftentimes forgotten that they also interact with arguments against theism.

In this thread, we will discuss those which atheists here think are most persuasive.

Any takers?

RE: The most persuasive arguments against theism.


the·ism
ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun

1. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

Virtually all humans do not accept the other theism. That universal lack of belief is the best argument.

 

[anonymous person]

Because you're once again pretending that you hold some sort of moral high ground.

I follow Jesus. I think His life of selfless self-sacrificing love that compelled Him to go to them that the religious elite despised is worthy of imitating because if I had been alive back then, I would have been an outcast too.

I have searched high and low. I have found no other person besides Jesus who I feel deserves my complete and total devotion.

And I think Jesus' teachings about who we are and where we are going and how we should live and marriage and how we should love one another and treat one another is superior in all aspects to all other competing philosophies.

 

[Loudmouth]

I follow Jesus. I think His life of selfless self-sacrificing love that compelled Him to go to them that the religious elite despised is worthy of imitating because if I had been alive back then, I would have been an outcast too.

You think? You are judging for yourself if Jesus was a moral person?

Why can't atheists use that same sense of morality to create a moral code?

 

[anonymous person]

How do you know that Jesus is moral? If you aren't able to judge morality for yourself, then you could be following an immoral leader, for all you know.

You're confusing epistemology with ontology.

I have never said we can't judge what is moral. We can and do atheists and theists.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[anonymous person]

How do you know that Jesus is moral? If you aren't able to judge morality for yourself, then you could be following an immoral leader, for all you know.

You're confusing epistemology with ontology.

I have never said we can't judge what is moral. We can and do atheists and theists.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[anonymous person]

You think? You are judging for yourself if Jesus was a moral person?

Why can't atheists use that same sense of morality to create a moral code?

They can my friend. Did you not read the posts I made where I said this?

 

[anonymous person]

We use the same thing you use, our own sense of morality.



How do you determine if God's commandments are moral? What standard do you use?

Do you know the difference between epistemology and ontology?

 

[Loudmouth]

You're confusing epistemology with ontology.

I have never said we can't judge what is moral. We can and do atheists and theists.

Do you understand the difference?

Do you understand that this means atheists have the same access to morality that you do?

 

[anonymous person]

Do you understand that this means atheists have the same access to morality that you do?

I have never said they don't.

Atheists do not have to believe in God to recognize certain acts are evil.

As J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig caution:

The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There is no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives. Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would largely agree. Or again, the question isnot: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God? The theist will typically maintain that a person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our children.

J.P. Moreland & William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2003), p.492.

 

[Larniavc]

the effects of natural disasters which exist as a result of the choices these free creatures made in choosing to live autonomously apart from Him.

So Earthquakes are the result of free will?

Really?

 

[quatona]

I have never said they don't.

Atheists do not have to believe in God to recognize certain acts are evil.

As J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig caution:

The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There is no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives. Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would largely agree. Or again, the question isnot: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God? The theist will typically maintain that a person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our children.

J.P. Moreland & William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2003), p.492.

Yeah, right.
It´s typically not the atheists that have problems with ascribing value to human beings. It´s some Divine Command Theorists and Genocide Apologists.

 

[quatona]

So Earthquakes are the result of free will?

Really?

You can´t prove they aren´t.

 

[Larniavc]

God is pleased by people having cancer

Really? Wow.

 

[Larniavc]

You can´t prove they aren´t.

Hm, now I'm getting a bit scared. How do I go about giving up my free will?

Free will sounds like a positive burden (in an earthquakey sort of way).

 

[anonymous person]

So Earthquakes are the result of free will?

Really?

There would be no earthquakes if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed God. The ground was cursed because of their disobedience to God. In God's economy, sin has devastating consequences which are far reaching beyond the immediate.