Topic: Case snake god
June 17, 2019 / By Ulrica Question:
Here's a list of arguments (in some cases even evidence) against the existence of god.
Which one do you think is best? (if unlisted please specify)
Lack of agreement: The many faiths are not in universal agreement about many of the fundamental principles of god. This entails a lack of foundation upon which their premises are derived.
Lack of evidence: There is no testable evidence to show the existence of any of the popular gods, evidence which would make all reasoning people agree that there is a god. Just one ‘I am up here’ message written in space for all the earth’s inhabitants to read (and in every language) would suffice.
Ungodly god: All popular religions portray their gods in temperament and in actions as being very like man with human emotions such as anger and jealousy, and thus not very god-like.
Ungodly demands: The religions all have their gods requiring behaviours of man that would not be required by a god; namely, building ornate temples, praising him constantly, prayers, chanting and various other acts claimed to be pleasing to their gods. Such activities are just what one would expect priests to require of their followers.
Ungodly actions by god: They have their god doing ungodly things like partaking in or affecting the outcome of battles, striking people down (including innocent children), creating a hell for non-believers, heretics, and other bad people, causing natural disasters and making diseases.
False history: Their accounts of history in the sacred writings have numerous conflicts with the archaeological evidence. Any system which will deceive for the sake of benefits is not worthy of any respect.
Uninspired ‘inspired’ writings: Their conception of events in the sacred writings is what we would expect of a pre-scientific people. They have demon-possessing people, talking snakes, witches, gods deciding which side would win a battle, striking people down, and so on.
Conflicts with reason: Reason creates expectations about what a long-lived, super-intelligent being would be like and require of man, but the portrayal in the sacred writings is in conflict with these expectations.
Sphere of god is imaginary: To claim that god is transcendental and incorporeal, thus beyond the material realm is to place their god beyond in the realm of imagination. To invent a category of transcendental, capable of existing in the spirit realm and the material realm doesn’t prove that there is such a being, or that there is a spiritual realm. It is just necessary to create it to justify the beliefs.
Harm: Religions have promoted wars, torture, genocide, repression of liberties, repression of natural sexual behavior and supported (and continue to support) class societies with their exploitation of the lower classes.
False and pernicious morality: By holding that the pleasures of sex is sinful, except when done within the confines of marriage and by considering it better to serve churches than to serve mankind by prohibiting safe sex practices, the followers of gods have promulgated a false morality.
Claims of religion necessary for us to know good and evil: By claiming that mankind requires a god belief to be able to live moral, decent lives is a myth. Humans have, as all primates, evolved to be kind towards others in their ‘group’ and to be intolerant and untrusting of those outside their group. Goodness and kind acts towards others has been demonstrated to actually be pleasurable to us.
@imn: valid points. lets not forget that the burden of evidence lays with the one making the claim.
Sarahjeanne | 7 days ago
Lack of Evidence.
That is the only one that is empirical.
All others are valid, but ultimately philosophical in nature.
and add to that the flip side of the evidence coin:
Copious evidence counter-indicating.
While it is impossible to 'prove' a negative, it can be said that for every religious assertion as to the nature of 'god', there is massive amounts of empirical evidence that counters the assertion.
None of those provide anything against a god. People believe in a god because they want to, pretty damn simple. Whether it exists or not is beyond argument. Likewise with a magical rainbow unicorn who poops on people to heal them, there is nothing a human can say to prove it doesn't exist.
They're all strong proof, however I think the lack of evidence speaks for itself. If there was a god (like most religions make out to be) then there would most likely be some form of proof.
The "best" one depends on the situation I guess.
E.g.: you can't proof god - reply: you can't disprove god either. (eyes rolling) -> there you can use the argument of ungodly acts by a god, etc.
Besides, they are all good arguments IMO