What are the most common and logically acceptable arguments atheists use against

1. 69

   amine-sehibiposted 9 years ago

   What are the most common and logically acceptable arguments atheists use against God's existence?
   
   I'm doing a research and require some tough-atheists's arguments that they use against God's existence, all arguments need to be objective, logically acceptable and valid. thanks

   replyreport
2. 87

   Austinstarposted 9 years ago

   We start by asking where is God? What does he look like? What does he wear? Does he have feet, a mouth, a nose to smell with? Why won't he appear on TV and show every religion in the world that he is a God? Why are humans so confused about a god's existence when it would be so simple for a God to just appear to us all and set the record straight?
   We don't say that this god doesn't exist, we ask what PROOF do we have that a god or gods exist?
   Where is this proof? How can it be tested? What sort of proof can a god provide to convince us he/she/it exists?
   God may or may not exist. Atheists and agnostics simply have not found reliable proof that a god or gods exist.

   replyreport
3. 73

   tsadjatkoposted 9 years ago

   
   
   There are none, no acceptable arguments. You cannot prove a negative, namely that God doesn't exist so to argue that he doesn't exist is vain.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Stargrrlposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Absolute truth, Tsad!  There are none!

      replyreport
   2. 84

      M. T. Dremerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That exact same logic proves the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      tsadjatkoposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Earth to MT Dremer, The logic (really a fact) expressed here is that you cannot prove a negative, so how can that logic prove anything exists. How does not proving a negative prove anything exists? Really, what are you smoking, MT?

      replyreport
   4. 60

      JennyDelToroposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly. The burden of proof is on those that make the claim. If you want me to believe there is a god, present me with compelling evidence. You can't just say that he exists b/c I can't prove a negative. You don't seem to understand burden of proof

      replyreport
   5. 84

      M. T. Dremerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      That logic can't prove anything exists. That's the point. Being unable to definitively disprove god is not evidence of his existence. Therefore there is no evidence of god's existence, therefore god does not exist.

      replyreport
4. 59

   Link10103posted 9 years ago

   Where is the proof that not only god exists, but a specific god over all the others that have thought to have existed over the course of history?
   
   How can one be considered correct over another if they both say that the other is false?
   
   How can one be considered correct when it came after another god that claimed the same thing?
   
   Those are just general questions that I have yet to see anyone answer without asserting things they have no way of knowing about and dont even seem to appear in scripture. The actual logic of god, at least the biblical one, is a completely different ballgame. For now though I think those are the basic questions that should be covered first before even attempting to delve into specifics.
   
   Its not particularly an argument against gods existence, rather than an argument as to why anyone should believe arguments for gods existence that dont make any logical sense.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      amine-sehibiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for your answer Link. it was very useful.

      replyreport
5. 77

   FitnezzJimposted 9 years ago

   Good research usually begins with clearly defined terms.
   
   Over the years, I have noted that different people and different cultures and different churches mean different things when they use the term "God".
   
   What do you mean by "God"?

   replyreport
   1. 69

      amine-sehibiposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I mean the all knowing all powerful Abrahamic God.

      replyreport
6. 84

   M. T. Dremerposted 9 years ago

   I often use the argument of the unreliable narrator. Which is a tool in fiction writing wherein the narrator of the story misleads the reader. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, it then throws the validity of the story into question. So the idea is this; who has been the narrator of religion? Who recounts the stories? Who translates them? Who enforces them? We do (humans).
   
   Do humans have a corrupting influence? Absolutely. History has taught us that humans can be petty, greedy, and vindictive. And the rise of video evidence of the past has proven our memory of events is flawed, and degrades over time. In the gaps, we tend to embellish because we're natural storytellers.
   
   When we realize that every single scrap of god and religion has been passed through the human lens, none of it can be trusted. Now, one might argue that this throws everything into question (because everything we see is through the human lens) but that's the difference between science and religion. Science is composed of impartial observations. The apple falls from the tree if an atheist is watching it. It falls if a christian is watching it. And it falls if no one is watching it. Whereas religion's existence is entirely dependent on its stories. Which are much more prone to human corruption.

   replyreport
7. 60

   JennyDelToroposted 9 years ago

   There is no proof that god exists. Things that exist can be observed.
   
   A good book on the subject is Why there is no God by Armin Navabi. Its a good starter for anyone that wants to learn more about atheism.

   replyreport
8. 60

   Levi Legionposted 9 years ago

   I think the most "logically acceptable" argument against the Abrahamic god's existence is the very simple matter of evidence---
   
   What definitive, verifiable proof can you provide that the Abrahamic god is exists?
   
   The most common response is, "Well the Bible speaks of him and the Bible is true." Well, the veracity and authenticity of the Bible a whole different topic, one that I've studied for a long time and I've concluded that it's not all it's followers claim it to be.
   
   When it comes down to it, no one has been able to provide concrete evidence of the Abrahamic god's existence. Therefore, the only rational response is skepticism.

   replyreport