First of all, we do not need to disprove God. The burden of evidence falls on he who makes the claim.

However...

Do you want arguments against all gods, arguments against the logic of the Judeo-Christian God, arguments against the inerrancy of the Bible or arguments against the historicity of Jesus? I can point you to good sources for all of these, but I can't explain most of them in 500 words or less. You will have to do some reading. If you are truly interested in doing so, I will be happy to assist in finding good material.

As a starting point, you might want to simply go to infidels.org and search for any topic you like. For instance, if you have read "The Case for Faith", then search for that title and you will find at least 2 excellent dissections. If you want to hear the other side of the cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the fine tuning argument, etc. just search for those terms and you will find some excellent essays. Many times you will also find a theistic rebuttal. How many times have you seen an atheistic rebuttal on a Christian website?

You may also want to search for Richard Carrier and read some of the essays he has written about ancient history.

Rook has compiled a very nice list of Biblical contradictions and some good evidence agaist the historicity of Christ in his forums on this site.

It is hard to give a detailed dissection in a thread. I am most of the way through a great Richard Carrier essay about the spiritual body of Christ. You can find it in "The Empty Tomb", edited by Dr. Robert Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder. This essay makes a very strong case for Paul not believing in the bodily resurrection of Christ. But the essay is 100 pages long and has an additional 30 pages of footnotes. To really get the impact of the article, you really need to read all of the letters of Paul, in chronological order, then read Mark, then read the essay while referring back to all of the Bible verses, then read Paul and Mark again. Much of the work of dissecting the Bible takes a great time investment. The more philosophical arguments are easier.

#2 is a straw man. It would be more accurate to say "You cannot prove that God exists so there is no justification for belief in God."

Which is not dogma?

1. There is no evidence that Vishnu exists, but Vishnu does exist.
2. There is no evidence that Buddha existed, but Buddha did exist.
3. There is no evidence that Allah exists, but Allah does exist.
4. There is no evidence that Quetzalcoatl exists, but Quetzalcoatl does exist.
5. There is no evidence that Thor exists, but Thor does exist.
6. There is no evidence that Zeus exists, but Zeus does exist.
7. There is no evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists, but the Tooth Fairy does exist.
8. Lacking evidence, there is no need to either disprove or believe in any of the above.
   

Many atheists do not go so far as to say that God does not exist. I am one who would say, "An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnitemporal God cannot be true." Since I actually make this positive claim (that many atheists do not make), I can offer arguments for the irrationality of that God.

I am a bit short on time so I will offer only one right now. The argument from animal suffering. If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does he allow animals to be infested by parasites that consume them from the inside until they die? Why do most animals die in pain? This cannot be related to free will since most of these animals have no impact on Man. One old answer was that animals did not really feel pain. This is why it used to be popular in the middle ages to put a bunch of cats in a bag and then light the bag on fire for public entertainment. We now know that cats do, in fact, feel pain. You also cannot counter this with the "fallen world" excuse since God is all-powerful and has the ultimate say in how far He will allow the world to "fall". Even if you argue that Satan is responsible, an all-powerful God would certainly be able to prevent this and an all-loving God would have no reason to allow it.

Now if you want to say that God is all-powerful and all-knowing but not all-loving, then I have less to argue with.

Good point. That is why I used 'existed' instead of 'exists' for Buddha. I understand the difference between Buddha and the gods on the list, but it was probably worth you pointing out the distinction anyway since some people probably do not.

I am new to the site.  I just watched the debate.  I would just like to comment that in future debates Sapient and Kelly should try not to sound so angry. They clearly won the debate since the theists brought the bible in right away.  It would help to sound more detatched which is difficult to do, but Kelly almost came off as hostile sometimes, and very sarcastic.  Overall, they did a fine job.  I would have liked to see a more concrete defense of evolution though.  They let Kirk and the other get to many perceived points on that when it shouldn't have happened. 

Hi Charles. Did you watch the whole debate on the Internet or just the Nightline hachet job? 

Not exactly. More that God would be a liar for claiming to have created the universe, when he couldn't possibly have done so. It would be no different from God trying to take credit for five being prime.

I started a new forum post here.

Doesn't that simply proof it again by refuting the logic of unlogical, which in turn disproves it... ad infinitum?

It's not a contradiction, it's a Strange Loop. And that's my entire point. I'm not making a claim based on complete logic or full knowledge, I simply acknowledge our limitations. Logic is a construct of the mind, understanding relationships is based on paradigms that will inevitably produce paradoxes.

There's no contradiction in the Socratic irony that says "I only know that I don't know anything."

But you don't understand that this IS my opinion (at least, at the time being). I'm a Total Agnostic. I believe in NOTHING. I know NOTHING, except the fact that I exist. I just have a lot of assumptions.

But the axioma of '..+..=....' is the product of an construct of organizing the world by laws that make sense. You can say that this is an objective truth, relative to our agreement on numbers, but it's a still a system that creates, and needs contradictions in order to exist, and creates truth that cannot be verified. Hence the whole '0.99999~=1?' debate. Hence the MIU-puzzle. Hence Zeno's paradox.

The bounderies between what is or isn't 'real' is to vague and to ambiguous. Therefor, I propose that everyone who has a closing theory on EVERYTHING is full of shit. And I do not rely on logic or information in order to argue this, I rely on the contradictions in logic and the absence of information in order to do this.

if atheist is "without God" and theist is "with God" - how are they the same.

Who is not an atheist?

I would love to know your definition of a Christian.  Because the classical definition does not allow one to be a Christian without belief in God.  I would be more than happy to prove that point.  One may have called themselves a Christian, but one cannot be a Christian without God.

 I appreciate that Scottmax pointed out that Christians were once "called" athiests, but that doesn't mean that they WERE atheists.  They most certainly were not.  Is there a different catagory that has been created that I am not aware of.

I + one God = monotheist (without many gods BUT with god)

I + no god = atheist (without god)

I + many gods = polytheist (with gods)

How does atheists fit any of these but, "Without God."  If you are proud of what you are - great, but do not try to bring me into your camp.  You and I are not the same.  I am "With God" and you are "without God."

 

Nobody here is trying to re-label you. It looks to me like you don't know the history of the word "atheist" and Scott is merely trying to explain it to you.

Thanks for that, Otishpote! I knew there was a theory of spacetime in which it didn't make sense to talk about the universe "beginning," but I could never remember how it went. You explanation was sufficiently dumbed-down for me to understand, and I thank you for that.

Buh bye, Creator God. There's no philosophical or scientific necessity for you to exist. 

You are falsely assuming people in the U.S. know more about evolution that they actually do.  Brian and Kelly - from an audience's perspective - lost the debate over evolution (which luckily was very short).  It should not have been discussed at all and it would have been very easy to refute (given that it has nothing to do with god's existence).  But sighing and calling people names while one person talks is not going to look good to those who watch it that are not familiar with evolution.

It should have been passed on, but it wasn't.  It's one of those things though, that people learn from.  Other than that, the debate was totally in favor of Brian and Kelly.

I see one major flaw in the whole, "every building has a builder" statement. While the concept is subtle, it might be worth pointing out since it's something people have observed in their daily lives.

We do not deny that every building had a builder. This is can be plainly observed by everyone. The question is who designed the building?

For example, homes are build by construction workers. These workers did not design the buildings they construct. They combine pre-existing materials using a series of instructions which results in a building. An architect creates the design, who hands them off to a contractor who instructs construction workers to construct the building. As such, the process of designing a building and constructing a building are two very separate things. In fact, In some modern factories use robots, which follow a set of digital instructions, to create products. In this case, the builder is simply a machine.

In the same way, we know that God did not "Make" the trees, birds or people we see today. They were not created out of thin air by God. These things were built by cells that followed a set of instructions known as DNA. In other words, these things built themselves. This is a fact we can all observe and confirm this very moment. We can also watch stars form and collapse in the universe, which help confirm our theories of how the earth and sun were created.

The real question is: were the genetic instructions cells follow to create birds, trees and people purposely designed by an intelligent author, or were they initially created by a series of chemical reactions, then expanded though a process of genetic mutations and natural selection.

Not this idiotic shit again. We can see paitnings made and buildings built. Ever seen a universe built?

 ...yeah, but you don't have to contact the building maker or the painter to know that it didn't just happen - that's the point.  Evidence as to why evoluion is totally impossiible read - "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical challenge to evolution" by Michael J. Behe  - finally the example Brian gave on ABC's Nightline of a transitional form - isn't one.

How you do know if something need a maker?  What do you have in comparison that doesn't need a maker to determine what needs a maker.  You are simply asserting that all things need to be made, so who made god? If god doesn't need a maker, the universe itself doesn't need one?  These bald assertions are pointless because they work for both sides.  Micheal J. Behe claims have been refutted and have been talked about on this very thread. 

 My question was, is separating the Builder from the architect something that everyone can grasp and have impact on the whole "every building... " line that we keep hearing over and over again.

While you and I have a relatively good grasp of the universe, most people do not. However, people have direct experice with plants that grow from seeds, mothers become pregnent and have children. These are concrete things that everyone is familar with. And the dont' just appear out of thin air. 

If we show that something as complex as a human being "builds itself", the concept may be more likely to be accepted when applied to something as mysterious as the universe.  

YOU WROTE:  Can someone be Buddhist without believing in Buddha?  I believe someone can be Christian without believing in god.

I think you are really asking a good question, rather than trying to make a point.  The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines atheism:

The view that there are no gods.  It goes on to say that Socrates was ACCUSED of atheism for not believeing in the official Athenian gods.  Finally it distinguishes, between theoretical atheism (one who self-consciously denies the existence of a supreme being) and practical atheism. (one who believes that a supreme being exists, but lives as though there were no god.)

I believe that scottmax would identify with the theoretical view and I would say that many Americans are of the practrical version Even some who claim to be Christians).  They may say that, "Oh yes, there is a God," but they have never thought through what that really means so they live their life as if there is no God.  Now when I say they live there life as if there is no God, I do not mean they lie, cheat, steal, murder, and lust.  Guess what - we all have done that.  What I mean is that they do not honor, worship, and serve God (the supreme being)  As I have stated before - they worship something, because everyone does - but they do not worship God. 

Now to the question, "Can you be a Christian and not believe in God."  Merriam Webster defines a Christian as, "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ."  If you believe in His teachings, He certainly taught about God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, AND He said that He was God.  So one would either have to believe that Jesus was a good teacher and therefore He told the truth and He was God; or Jesus was not a good teacher because He lied. 

Buddha once said, "Ambition is like love, impatient both of delays and rivals."  I agree with that statement, but that doesn't make me a follower of Buddha.  Many people through the ages have stated that the Bible is a good book, it has good stories, it teaches good morals, and it is good at teaching the culture of ancient Israel.  Some people who reject the entire Bible still love the book of Proverbs. 

Likewise, some may embrace that Jesus said, Love others as yourself."  They may try to pracitice it day by day.  But that does not make them Christian.  Because Jesus said right before that, "You Shall love the Lord your God,with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind."  So how do you take out the God part and say you follow Jesus' teaching.  I would be more than happy to elaborate on what being a Christian is, but I am sure I would get killed by others for even bringing it up on this website.

YOU WROTE:  Wouldn't following the teachings of the Christian faith while regarding it as mythology qualify someone as Christian?  I would say more so than the one who believes in Christ/God but does not follow the teachings. 

Even though I understand what you are saying, there is no such thing as being more a Christian than another Christian.  It is like there is no such thing as being kind-of pregnant.  You either are, or you are not.  There is a difference in maturity in ones faith, but you either believe all of what Jesus said about Himself (God's Son, Lord and Savior), or you reject who He claimed to be.  There is no walking the fence on this subject.

Finally let me say, there are many who claim to be Christians, and yet they have no idea what that means.  They most certainly do not follow the teachings of Christ.  I do not fall into that catagory.  I do fail everyday (I sin and do not live up to the standards of Jesus Christ - Perfection) but I do attempt to live my life in a way the gives him honor and glory.  I study abut Him, I read my Bible, and my faith grows everyday.  I hope this helps.  Let me know if there is still debate on this issue.

This is certainly true. Many people are woefully uninformed about the faith they profess to follow. I think this can be a very dangerous state as it leaves them vulnerable to charlatans with an emotional story. If fact, this is why I think all non-believers should study religion. I think we can all agree that it would be better to have 1000 informed atheists, moderate Christians or moderate Muslims than a like number of radical fundamentalists ready to kill for their God on the word of a charismatic lunatic.

Yep. But I have to admit that I get really annoyed with Christians who claim that other Christians are not "true" Christians. I always take an inclusive view of the word Christian, meaning everyone who believes that Jesus is God and has chosen to at least give their allegiance to Him. So I would not include Mormons since they think Jesus was just a prophet and I would not include folks who believe in the divinity of Jesus but choose to worship Satan or something like that. (I'm not sure that such folk really exist.)

Back to the original point of this discussion, when Kelly said that everyone is an atheist towards some gods, she was using "atheist" in its loosest possible definition of "one who disbelieves in a god". It would probably be more correct for us to say: "Everyone is a non-believer in other gods. We just disbelieve in one god more." I think this is a good point that we are probably failing to make by putting the "objectionable" word "atheist" in the mix.

The real point is that you and I share a disbelief in 1000s of gods. We share a common culture that binds us. You and I understand each other to a far greater degree than you and most African Christians do. Our morality is far closer as well. The main thing that divides us is that you think certain acts (mostly sexual) are sinful since they are so defined by your ancient text and we atheists have no reason to think so. Many of us atheists are starting to speak out more because it is important for our fellow men to understand that we are not amoral and actually tend to play a very active role in increasing tolerance since we have no need to look down on people whom the Bible declares to be sinners.

SCOTTMAX:

Your response to my posting included a mention of being a teenager with zits and having a mother who suffered from liver cancer...do you think that I myself have not had my hardships? Seems that you may be dwelling on anger towards God for misfortunes, and I'm familiar with that myself. I've been VERY angry with God in my life....having an abusive fiance, two friend's who committed suicide, three cancer-driven deaths for my grandparents, my mother having a nervous breakdown, a friend's still-birth baby, being relentlessy teased in middle school, etc.....now, when was my turning point??? When I gave it all to God. So, to use the whole "why do we suffer" point....think about it from a rebellious child standpoint....if you rebel against your parents, get involved in gangs, drugs, promiscuity, etc....do you not reap the consequences for those actions? Same thing as turning your back on God. He's not punishing you, you're punishing yourself by misbehaving....

SCOTTMAX:

Your response to my posting included a mention of being a teenager with zits and having a mother who suffered from liver cancer...do you think that I myself have not had my hardships? Seems that you may be dwelling on anger towards God for misfortunes, and I'm familiar with that myself. I've been VERY angry with God in my life....having an abusive fiance, two friend's who committed suicide, three cancer-driven deaths for my grandparents, my mother having a nervous breakdown, a friend's still-birth baby, being relentlessly teased in middle school, etc.....now, when was my turning point??? When I gave it all to God. So, to use the whole "why do we suffer" point....think about it from a rebellious child standpoint....if you rebel against your parents, get involved in gangs, drugs, promiscuity, etc....do you not reap the consequences for those actions? Same thing as turning your back on God. He's not punishing you, you're punishing yourself by misbehaving....

REVLyle: Due to all the inconsitencies in the bible (for the sake of this debate we can stick to the New Testament) isn't it difficult if not impossible to to be a "true" Christian?  Setting aside the problems that arise from pure interpretation, everyone believes they are following the <i>true</i> teachings of Christ. 

Interestingly enough, my zits weren't bad, both of my parents are alive and healthy, my Grandma lived to 88 and remained pretty functional to the end. I have a wonderful wife and 2 bright, healthy, happy children. I have never in my life been "angry" at God. Not even when I believed with my whole heart that God existed. I never considered the argument from evil until long after I drifted away from superstition.

That post was a while back but I think the point I was discussing was one of design. If we are designed, then God needs to hire a new architect. Why would he design us with a blindspot in our eye? Why would he have the male urinary tract pass through the prostate so that old men can't pee? Why would we have an appendix that can explode and kill us or wisdom teeth that need to be pulled as often as not?

I am sorry to hear that you have had so many trials in your life. It always seems ironic that many who have had the hardest time cleave to God most strongly. If God is all-knowing, then He knew everything that would happen to you in your life before He ever pulled the trigger on Creation. He could have changed things ever so slightly so that your life took a different path. So God gave me a pretty pleasant life so far and chose to put you through hell.

I disbelieve in a God who would do that to you. You worship Him for helping you. God gave you grief until you agreed to worship Him. Amanda, if a man abducted you and stuck you in a hole for 5 years, this would be a bit like thanking for him for letting you out of the hole once you promised to love and obey him.

I agree.

But I think this is an perfect example of how many theists project the constraints of their faith onto others without even realizing it.

The same could be said with ethics and morality. When theists project their association with God and morality on non-theists, they assume non-thesists have no morals. In a majority of these cases, I'd say that theists don't even realize how this constrains their view of the world and everyone around them.

It's as if they live in some alternate universe were non-divine morality simply does not exist.

Veils of Maya wrote:  Really? Unless you claim to be God or Jesus, I'd say you have no right to tell anyone how they should interpret the Bible. If someone choose a metaphorical interpretation of the Bible, they could follow the metaphorically message they think was reveled by Christ teachings. I think fundamentalists who think they have some kind of monopoly on the Bible quite arrogant.

 I am nothing but a man.  That is all.  You will notice that I did not tell someone how to interpret the Bible.  I simply stated that the Bible makes it quite clear that Jesus speaks of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.  So, if someone states that they believe in Jesus, and they follow the Bible, but Jesus didn't really mean what he said, (God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and there is no God - - - - What is the point?  Sure, call yourself whatever you want.  But I certainly have never read of the church proclaiming that one could be a follower of Christ and deny God.

  But I will tell you.  Not only does the Bible state that there is a God, the patristic fathers (Those who studied under the Apostles) certainly wrote about God.  So all of their writings (very much revered by the church) would also have to be taken metaphorically and so on and so on.  We could play the "what if" game all day long.  Doesn't make for very good debate.

Let me finally state that the church has ALWAYS maintained Jesus was God and anything less than that was calld heresy.  You may hate that fact, but the point of what I am saying is that from the very beginning of Christianity - the divinity of Christ has been proclaimed.  I find it interesting that 2000 years later - removed from the time, place, culture, and events we are now saying - well, maybe Jesus was only metaphorically speaking.  I know of no place in church history where the transition of metaphorical God - to real God took place.  Could you find that for me?

I can tell you why I, as a Christian, am against any kind of abortion.  I would never get into a debate about when the fetus becomes human or when does the fetus feel pain.  (I am curious about your view of that since your question about animals feeling pain).  That is not the issue.  The issue for me when it comes to abortion is - ownership.  The reason I do not support abortion, and certainly do not want my tax dollars to provide for abortion, is that children do not belong to their parents.  A man and a woman can decide to have sex all day long if they want, but God decides when that act of sex results in pregnancy.  For my wife to get pregnant, and then my wife or me, choose to abort, in essence - I am stating by my actions - My decisions supercede God's.  That I know better than Him what is best for me and my wife.  As a Christian, I know that my children do not come from me, they are a gift from God. 

I realize that you believe differently than me - I am just trying to give you the point of view of a Christian man.  I am attempting give you another glimpse into Christian person's understanding of God.

 Hey, scottmax - tell me your view on Abraham and Isaac.

stillmatic WROTE: People are calling Christians atheists because it's an appropriate term. Christians are atheists when it comes to Gods outside of their own. This is why historically "atheist" was a label for someone who didn't believe in your God, regardless if they believed in their own.

So if I was a pagan worshipping Apollo and you didn't believe in Apollo, you were "without God"  and therefore an atheist in my eyes as you didn't believe in my God. Got it?

I think scottmax got it right in his post.  The question is - do you view the term atheist as a subjective term or an objective term.  You are defining it from your point of view (Subjective) and I am defining it from an outside point of view (Objective).  If you worshipped Apollo and I worshipped Yahweh.  I am "without your god" or "without a god" but I am not "without God" which is the definition of atheism. I am with Yahweh (God).