Jove

Hmm?

Spenser

First you must define God. If Omni-max then I'd have to say nearly any of them, but for your sake I'll say that since seeing anything beyond space and time is currently (and most probably always) impossible then so is trying to visualize anything beyond it; you can never expect proof. Though this may not disprove God it does show it's pointless to search for him.

Sci_Fidelity

I don't find any of them convincing at all.

Edit: Oops- I misread the OP as existence, not non-existence. Dumbass, me.

PandaJoe

The complete failure of theists to provide an argument that can stand under any amount of scrutiny, or to even provide a consistent, non-contradictory definition of what God is.
You'd think that if something were so certain to exist, at least one person could come up with a good argument or definition all theists can agree with.

Lobstrosity

The fact that different cultures hold vastly different, mutually exclusive religious beliefs. Religion is clearly an invention of culture, not some objective truth. No religion has stood up to scrutiny and all religions claim every other religion is wrong. In the absence of any evidence, I think any person capable of objective, rational thought should be able to realize that no religion has a clue what it's talking about.

Doubting Didymus

The only argument I ever bother with:

1: One should not accept any hypothesis without evidence that supports it.
2: There is no evidence that supports the god hypothesis. (this is where arguments occur, but arguments are the stuff of life)
Conclusion: one should not accept the god hypothesis.

I'ts blindingly simple.

Violent Messiah

PandaJoe:

Read several apologists' defense of God. They'd rather not label their beliefs as failures.

Lobstrosity:

What you stated constitutes an argument against religion - not God.

MadMez

On patrol on a dim and drizzly 1975 evening in NW Belfast I (with my mate Fifi) heard the above come from a dustbin. Jock, our section commander, backed us away and we sealed off the area, suspecting a clever trap. After what seemed an age we tied rope to a handle, and around a lamppost and pulled the thing across the road to se if any device would go off, or fall out.

The content of note was a now dead newborn. Which, hours before had given me the one of the best arguments against any "god" which I can still hear to this day. There are many others, but that one sticks with me.

Another good one is Lacsap's wager. Where you gamble on being judged by time on how you used your life.

If you spend it in adoration of one of the many deities in the miniscule chance of blissful immortality, you could be judged in time to have condemned less fortunate contemporaries to a life of suffering and terror by your waste of financial, intellectual and other resources.
Like the children starving in sight of that opulent cathedral on the Ivory Coast.
If you spend your life, etc in helpful pursuits of practical assistance, like volunteer service and secular medical missions, then you have a chance of ending up in "hell" but a much, much, much better chance of being judged positively by time.

diana

No evidence and no good argument for.

Over time, I've found myself shifting to Koy's position that it's perfectly rational to say, "There is no god," and furthermore, this position doesn't require evidence any more than saying, "There are no leprauchans" does.

As usual, though, Koy said it much better. His boots I'm not worthy to lick.

d

Albert Cipriani

Spenser says, Ergo, Spenser is a hypocrite unless he also admits the pointlessness of searching for a visualization of all other temporal manifestations of things beyond space and time, for example justice and whatever the hell it is about music that we visualize or imagine to be going on when all that is going on is stirrup bone vibrations.

PandaJoe doesn’t believe in God cuz of: That’s why PandaJoe doesn’t believe in pornography or beauty either. You see, even nine very educated old men and women in black robes can’t define pornography. And poets don’t even try to define beauty. They’re smart enough to know that our inability to define something indicts us, not the thing that is beyond our powers to define.

Lobstrosity says he doesn’t believe in religion because of: No doubt, Lobstrosity can often be spied grocery shopping naked cuz, intellectually consistent logician that he is, he doesn’t believe in clothes either, for as we all know: “different cultures hold vastly different, mutually exclusive wardrobe beliefs.” So why bother with pants or loincloths or grass skirts. He will have nothing to do with any of these cultural niceties that are as wildly different as the world’s religions. You might say he wears his anti-religious beliefs on his sleeve… if he had one. So let’s just say that if you see him grocery shopping with conventional clothes on, he’s as inconsistent a hypocrite as PandaJoe and Spenser.

Doubting says: Like a drunken sailor chasing whores, of course he never finds a woman worthy of being his wife. Duh. Evidence does not fall from the skies. It must be sought, and sought in the right places. But Doubting, a confirmed bachelor pretending to be open to matrimony if only the right girl would come along is also open to a relationship with God if only God’s signature ring or some other form of evidence would fall out of the sky and hit him on the head. Doubting may fool himself that this is true, and may even be able to fool his barfly floosies that he’s still looking for Miss Right, but alas, he won’t be able to fool God.

Mad doesn’t believe in God because of his attachment to the logical fallacy known as bifurcation, expressed thusly: You see, in Mad’s mad world, time spent praying is time debited from helping the poor. Of course, time spent watching sitcoms or applying makeup or playing sports or eating junk food or relaxing in the sun or traveling or wasting bandwidth here or… you get the picture. Only wasting time on God is wasting time. Wasting time on all form and manner of other patently silly things is just, well, counted to your credit as helping the poor. But then again, that’s how it is in Mad’s mad world, not the real world theists inhabit.

Diana says: You and Doubting ought to form a duet for singing the same plaintive lay out of key. “O where O where has the evidence all gone? O where O where can it be? Gone to atheists everyone cuz we’re all too blind to see.” The video should be fraught with Oedipus Rex imagery, implying that the blindness was self-induced. I smell a crossover hit! Wait a second. No. That was the garbage I forgot to take out.

Let me put this as simply and kindly as I can: You are all a bunch of hypocrites. No offense meant, just my observation. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic