Groovy Cosmic Monkey

I think both sides of the theist/atheist debate can sometimes be tempted to defend any argument, no matter how unpersuasive, that happens to support their worldview.

So, I'm interested to know, from the perspective of non-believers, are there any arguments that are supposed to demonstrate the falsity of theism which you nevertheless find unconvincing? For example, are there any avowed atheists who find the Problem of Evil or the Argument from Non-Belief, etc., unpersuasive as disproofs of God?

reprise

I find many arguments advanced by atheists against the existence of specific Gods unconvincing. I also find arguments based on the inconsistencies in religious texts unconvincing.

As atheists, we are essentially asserting that religious texts are works of fiction. If they are indeed works of fiction, then why should they not be contain the same types of flaws that are present in other works of fiction, past and present?

Even if the various religious texts contained some reports of factual events, why should those reports be any more accurate or consistent that modern-day works based on factual events?

Doctor X

Most modern works on the JFK assassination, be they favor Oswald or Star Fleet Command, agree on the date of the assassination.

The two primary textual witnesses to the birth differ by ten years.

This does tend to diminish their reliability.

However, aside from the wonderful scholarly puzzle of trying to figure out how people believed at different stages, people who believe do tend to point to texts as "evidence."

Nevertheless, fools can create foolish arguments on any side of an issue, even the correct one.

--J.D.

Heathen Dawn

The omnipotence paradox argument - "can God create a rock He cannot lift", or "can God kill himself" - seems pretty silly to me. I never employ it. My atheism rests upon arguments of nonsystematic fate, refutation of anthropocentrism, confusion, physical minds and divine hiddenness. And of course the general lack of evidence for any gods whatever.

Ovazor

Every argument based on demonstrating that some "absolute" trait of God (e.g. ominpotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, being greatest possible being etc.) or a combination of them is logically impossible. That's not really argument about existence of god but about their nautre. These arguments say nothing about the possibility of being that is a very powerful or scient or benevolent or something, but not omni-so.

Besides, many deities that has been worshipped were not imagined to be omnipotent, -scient or benevolent, or most powerful. I don't believe in the petty gods either!

Marduk

None of them are convincing, except maybe the ones involving a logical inconsistency of a certain claimed attribute of a particular God, as was mentioned. The existence of a particular type God may seem improbable or even silly, but that is irrelevant if that is indeed how things are.
If Zeus really did turn himself into a swan to get laid there is nothing I could do about it, same with the Bible God, if I don�t like him, too bad.
The problem of evil is only important if you claim God is both all powerful and all good, many do not, people are evil, they do evil things even if this God said to do otherwise.
�If you guys don�t want to listen, than fuck yas all, see if I care�

The arguments from science and evolution are meaningless, a 6000 year old earth made by fiat to look 4 billion years old would appear as it does now anyway and explaining how God does things does not mean there isn�t a God

The historical/archaeological arguments are meaningless as well, if not a single event in any religious text ever happened the world would be just as it is now, a few billion Christians, Muslims and Hindus etc. and that is assuming none of these things happened as we do now, how would things be any different if they did happen? How would we know?

It is no more than a question of what you feel makes the most sense. I see random events unfolding in a universe that is very strange.

Evolutionist

hell, all i need is the utter lack of proof of any given deity. the rest of the time i'm merely disproving their silly arguments- and thats what i put the arguing against an omni god. they make the claim of an omni god, and i refute it. i'm not making the claim myself, i'm merely arguing theirs.

the worst ones i feel are the word games- can god create a rock so heavy he can't lift it etc.

someone actualy goes into it at wasteland of wonders:

"can god create a rock so heavy he can't lift it"- what?!

Mullibok

I wouldn't call reducing someone to an "all the evidence is fake/planted" assertion meaningless. If it was truly meaningless no one would ever get convicted of a crime.

Marduk

"I wouldn't call reducing someone to an "all the evidence is fake/planted" assertion meaningless. If it was truly meaningless no one would ever get convicted of a crime."

So what would be the difference between a 4 billion year old Earth and one that is 6000 years old but made to look 4 billion years old?

Rusting Car Bumper

One doesn't need arguments to be an atheist. One only needs to recognize that arguments that purport the existence of god fail in that effort.

DC