I'm delving more frequently into philosophy in search of convincing arguments against theism.

Here is a great start from William K Clifford from 1877.

Change to the Blog

I thought I'd make a few more posts than I have been over these last few months. The original idea for the blog was just the thesis, but as I find more and more pursuasive arguments against theism, I'd like to share them here with the few of you who might drop in.

So to kick it off, here's today's which I've stolen from John Loftus' blog.

Either the natural world is all there is-- or an infinity of possible supernatural beings, forces, and realms are possible with no way to tell the real from the imaginary-- and yet every believer in the supernatural imagines they have figured out a way to do so!

and

I don't have any supernatural beliefs. My assumption is only that your supernatural beliefs are as wrong as the supernatural beliefs that conflict with yours or that you find unbelievable. Or if they are right, there is no way for us to distinguish them from the infinity of wrong supernatural beliefs.

There is no way to tell real invisible undetectable beings from imaginary or mythological ones.

Wonderful explanation of atheism

This is an extract from a post by "Diplomatic Atheist" on the John Loftus blog www. debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com

But in my atheism there is nothing to prove. I claim nothing. Eric pointed out astutely that there are multiple definitions for Atheism. Of which the differences are a disbelief of God and a denial of God. I disbelieve. To deny is to make a claim, but to lack belief is not only the position you take in response to a poor argument for the claim, but many Christians do not realize it is the default position on everything. You start in disbelief before you get to belief. To believe something before you consider the possibility that it doesn't is usually in bias.

As my position is disbelief, it is logically obtained in the lack of sufficient evidence and argument from the claim. Disbelief is not an argument from ignorance simply because it makes no claim. It simply states there is not enough evidence to believe in your claim.


So we're clear, I fall into the same camp. My atheism is nothing more than disbelief, not denial.

Great paper supporting my theory

This paper is the most well reasoned and evidenced paper I have ever read explaining the fundamental difference between science and religion (and other supernatural beliefs).

I thoroughly recommend it.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-11-03/#feature

Introduction

As an atheist, one is often challenged by the theists to prove there is no God.

It’s a question cleverly designed to elicit the only possible response, which is “No, I can’t”.

All intelligent people realise that you cannot disprove a negative. There is no known way for me to prove that fairies or unicorns don’t exist either.

However, the now famous “flying spaghetti monster” argument, is too easily dismissed by the theists who desperately cling to the “You can’t prove God doesn't exist” line.

So, I thought about the problem another way.

Theists are clearly choosing to believe in a God, and not flying spaghetti monsters (in the main). This implies that they’ve made some sort of discriminating decision in favour of their silent and invisible God.

They have in fact decided it is necessary for their God to exist and be a part of their lives.

So rather than try and argue whether God does or doesn’t exist, I have decided to attempt to prove that a decision to have a God in your life is simply of no benefit, and hence completely unnecessary. As unnecessary as believing in a flying spaghetti monster or fairies.

So how does one argue God is not necessary (another negative)? I’ll first need to determine all the reasons theists use to decide God is necessary, and then argue my case to the contrary.

In doing this, I have utilised my own knowledge of theism, coming from a childhood Australian Catholic background. I have some understanding of the other major religious traditions; however it is very basic in comparison to Christianity. Hence I will ask you to excuse the constant references to the Christian Bible and practices. It is not that I am singling their God out as the only unnecessary one; I just know more about how he is supposed to operate than the others.

I have excluded a few reasons which are unarguable because they actually aren't decisions; e.g. because my parents do, because my country is an Islamic state. If that is why you follow (not chose) a God, good luck to you. You could have just as easily been an atheist on the same grounds.

I may have missed an important reason that you think God is necessary. If so, I will be glad to amend this thesis to include it (subject to the test of logic as above). Just leave your reason(s) in the comments here.

With that in mind, the reasons I came up with for God being necessary in someone’s life are:
· To provide a moral code
· So you can go to heaven or stay out of hell
· Someone to forgive your sins
· To help with earthly problems
· To explain the mysteries of the universe
· To explain why things happen to us personally
· Someone to talk to

I’ll be tackling each one of these in depth (follow the links) and in the spirit of philosophical debate, invite your comment and counter arguments.

You can save yourself the trouble of warning me of my eternal damnation though. I’m not the least bit afraid and will be forced to respond with ridicule of your intellectual consciousness for the amusement of my atheist buddies. So keep it professional, and I will too.