Do you think it is arrogant to say "There is no God."?

Question

I think it is, since of course there is no proof in that statement?
It's like looking at the computer and saying there are no eggs.
I think its unethical and down right ridiculous for any body to claim.
I have'nt found any proof in the world that would tell me thier is'nt a God, so please any athesist that can quote "there is no God," enlighten me.

Answer 1

No, I wouldn't say it's arrogant, I would say it's the sensible point of view. Gods are clearly just characters invented by the human imagination.

Why I Don't Believe in the Existence of Gods:

=== 1: Simple Common Sense ===

Nothing in life has ever made me suspect that any gods really exist. I see no divine revelations, no miracles, no answered prayers, no preferential good fortune for people of any particular faith, no divine retribution for evildoers, no protection for the virtuous, the innocent or the weak. Life is exactly as we would expect it to be if there was no divine influence in the world - i.e. good and bad things come to good and bad people alike. Our lives are subject to chance, and the actions of other people, but that seems to be all.

=== 2: The Natural World ===

"Nature does all things spontaneously, by herself, without the meddling of the gods." - Titus Lucretius Carus (c.99-55 BCE).

We can see no sign of any divine involvement in the natural world. Galaxies, stars and planets form because it is in the nature of matter to do so. Living organisms evolve and diverge by the unthinking, undirected process of evolution. There is no plan, no design, just the effects of probability and the properties of matter and forces. Many people will claim to the contrary, but as far as I can tell this just reflects an ignorance about how the natural world really is, rather than the perception of any higher truth. Certainly, their arguments always evaporate in the light of reason.

=== 3: Logical Arguments ===

1: I cannot believe that the wealth of organisation, complexity and diversity that we see in the physical world, and particularly in the structures and functions of living organisms, could just exist fully formed with no origin, no precursor, nothing to explain its existence. By the same token, I cannot believe that an entity could exist which designed and created the physical and natural world, and which *itself* exists fully formed with no origin, no precursor, no explanation for its existence. The only reasonable explanation, therefore, is that organisation, complexity and diversity are features which naturally develop out of simplicity and chaos because of the fundamental nature of the universe. This is indeed what science shows us, in the form of cosmology and biology, as supported by real objective evidence and reasoned argument.

2: We've known for thousands of years that the 'tri-omni' gods of classical monotheistic religions cannot exist. If an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent deity existed, then human evil could not exist. Since human evil unarguably does exist, the classical monotheistic deity cannot exist (objections about 'free will' notwithstanding).

3: Quantum Mechanics strongly suggests that nothingness is a state that cannot exist in reality, since that would be 100% deterministic, and QM says that existence is probabilistic rather than deterministic. Experimental evidence supports QM. If true, then this also precludes the existence of a creator, since it would be impossible to have a state of 'nothingness' from which a 'something' could be created.

4: David Hume proved that moral values are subjective - i.e. they describe a person's response to events, rather than objective properties of events themselves. Since morals are personal and subjective, there cannot be an external, objective source of moral values - Indeed, the idea is simply incomprehensible. Therefore, any god which is claimed to be the objective source of moral values cannot possibly exist. This includes the gods of most monotheistic religions, by their usual definitions.

5: Argument from design: If everything was designed by an intelligent creator then we would have no basis for identifying things that clearly *are* designed (things made by human beings) since we would have no non-designed (i.e. natural) things to compare them with. Therefore the natural world (everything that has not been designed by humans) must be non-designed, and therefore there can't be a designer god.

6: All attempts at arguing *for* the existence of any gods through logic and reason can be and have been comprehensively debunked.

=== 4: Religious Belief, Literature and Dogma ===

If any religion were true, we could reasonably expect it to produce some ideas and beliefs that people couldn't have thought up by themselves. Similarly for 'holy texts', and the rules and practices that derive from them. In fact though, religions only produce what we would expect humans to imagine or decide for themselves, on the basis of aspects of human nature such as superstition, moral judgments, xenophobia and so on. There is no sign of any divine influence here.

Religious literature, if divinely inspired, ought to be factually correct and free of contradictions, immoral ideas and absurdities. None of the holy texts fit the bill.

=== 5: Society and Culture ===

It's an observable fact that people overwhelmingly adopt the religion of their family and culture. If there was any external truth to religion, which human beings could perceive with some kind of supernatural sense, then we could reasonably expect there to be some consistency in religious belief. Instead, the distrubution of different religious beliefs is exactly as we would expect it to be if this were pure mythology, handed down through family and culture like any other kind of purely fictional story.

=== 6: Intellectual and Moral Progress ===

Religion has consistently been the enemy of intellectual progress, suppressing rational investigation of the world where it disagrees with and thus endangers religious belief (often by torture and death). There has never been, to the best of my knowledge, one single fact about the world that was brought to us by divine inspiration rather than rational investigation. How could this be, if religion were a source of truth? Religion has also consistently been the undisputed cause of much conflict, discrimination and persecution in the world, belying the existence of any kind of benevolent or moral guardian of the world.

=== 7: Rational Explanation for Religious Belief ===

As part of our evolutionary 'toolkit' of survival strategies, we have a highly developed awareness of other entities in our environment - We often notice human faces in carpet patterns, rabbit-shaped clouds and so on. There is more survival value in seeing what really *is* there, and also seeing some things that *aren't* really there, than in missing things that really are there and going hungry, or worse, ending up as someone else's lunch.

The consequence of this undeniably true aspect of human nature is that we have a natural tendency to imagine 'agents' (intelligent entities) behind natural phenomena and events in our own lives that aren't really there - i.e. gods and goddesses, demons, angels, spirits - a whole menagerie of supernatural characters. Society and culture binds up these characters with our wishes and fears, our desires for dominance and submission and shared identity, and we end up with religious belief and ritual and dogma, in thousands of different flavours throughout the world and throughout history. Religion is formalised superstition - It's just a common flaw in human nature, rather like the way we see optical illusions. We can account for the existence of religious belief perfectly well with this fact-based, rational explanation, rather than believing that there really is a supernatural realm of existence.

=== 8: Human Nature ===

Religious people will argue that humans are unique amongst all the animals in having an eternal, divine component that exists independently of the physical body - Usually referred to as a 'soul'. What exactly could a soul be? What properties could it have? What part of a person resides in the soul?

If it's postulated that consciousness, or awareness, or sense of self resides in the soul, it's difficult to see how this can be reconciled with the complete oblivion which accompanies general anaesthesia. How could a straightforward chemical, injected into the bloodstream, anaesthetise a soul so that it effectively ceases to exist during this time? If consciousness, in the form of a soul, were some kind of supernatural faculty, it would seem implausible that it could be completely disabled by a chemical.

How about some of the other things which we regard as essential parts of what makes a person what they are? How about love, compassion, reason, empathy, memory, conscious thought, character, 'spirituality' and so on? Well, there is really no plausible doubt that all these things are properties of the physical brain - We can alter all of these properties very simply with alcohol or other drugs, and observe how they change in people who have suffered significant brain damage. Previously placid people become uncontrollably violent, intelligent people become imbeciles, and so on. Stimulate the brain artificially, and the subject reports corresponding mental activity, e.g. 'religious experiences'. We can see from brain research that all these things - thought, emotion, sensation, character traits and so on - are correlated with activity in the brain, and some things can be identified with specific areas of the brain.

So, if all these faculties and characteristics of what we regard as the 'person' reside in the physical brain, as seems to be undeniably the case, and they all cease when the person dies, then what is left to be attributed to a 'soul'? As far as I can ascertain: Nothing. If there is no part of us that can continue after death, then there is no 'afterlife'... and if there is no afterlife, then most of religion is null and void.

============

There are other reasons too, but that'll do for now...

Answer 2

There are few atheists who use real facts. Most of them simply use made up garbage or stupid stuff they find on the internet as if they were facts. If you truly used real FACTS you would not address so many questions to "Christians" and their "interpretation of the Bible" when in FACT you mean only fundamentalists and they represent only 10% of Christians world-wide and the vast majority of Christians have absolutely no problem with science. Did you know that the "Father of the Modern Scientific Method" was a Catholic priest? Edit: What is real arrogance found in some atheists is the way they treat different ideas. Most theists are believers because of a personal experience which has proved to THEM that God does exist. Obviously atheists have not had an experience like that yet. Usually when someone has an experience you have not the question asked is some variation of "What was that like?". The arrogance of some atheists is found by the common response similar to: "No you haven't and you are stupid if you think you have."

Answer 3

Good question. I feel as though that statment is very arrogant. Even if one takes it from a non-Christian perspective - Can the human race say that we have all the knowledge we will ever have? Is there not one tiny bit of possibility that the human race does not know everything?

Look at science throughout it's history. Science will have absolutes, then they are disproven by newer findings. One discovery after another that disproves past discoveries - we simply do not have all the facts and most likely never will. So why not allow for the possiblity of God?

I know I believe.

Answer 4

I think that there may be a God, or maybe not. Either way there is no way to prove His existence. It is illogical to believe in a supreme being. Many atheists are far more intelligent than I am. I would not dream of speaking for them, except to say that they are people with logical minds. They desire proof. No proof can be delivered, so they say well, no existence.

What proof do you have? Have you seen him. Where is his picture? Do you have a recording of His voice? Do you have a tooth, or bone, or anything physical to prove that He exists? If you do, present it. Otherwise, you better lay off the atheists cuz you are no match intellectually for any of the atheists that I know.

Answer 5

I think it's arrogant to say there is a God. Since of course there is no proof in this statement. Yes there is a continuity and an awe inspiring feeling about the universe as a whole.

BUT

It's man who makes God in his own image. The idea of God is for the comfort of our ego. Sorry.

Answer 6

Yeah, sort of like it's arrogant to say " 2 + 2 = 4".

Besides, the burdon of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person calling bullshit on the claim.

Look... if you say "there is a god" and someone else says "prove it... I'm going to assume there is no god until you prove your claim" then the person requesting proof is taking the default philosophical position of nonbelief as they rightly SHOULD and the burden is on you. Until you can prove your positive assertion, the other person is right in taking the nonbelief stance.

Answer 7

As far as I'm concerned, there is no god - it does not exist for me. I do not purport to prove it nor feel the slightest need to do so. If it is true for you, that's fine with me until you try to shove it down my throat or legislate it. And you would have to provide genuine, irrefutable proof that god exists (not scripture, or parables, or dire threats of eternal damnation) to me to change my beliefs.

Answer 8

Confidence can sound like arrogance. So what?

If you expect me to believe in god, leprechauns, pixies or aliens, you'll have to produce better evidence than an old book and "it's true, honest, I beeleeve!"

Otherwise, your argument is not impressive. In fact, it makes no impression at all.

Answer 9

i think by your own reasoning it is just as arrogant to say there is a God ... since there is no proof in that statement

Answer 10

Isn't it more arrogant to claim there is a God? Athiests are perfectly happy to live without feeling like they need a Universal purpose... Isn't it rather arrogant to assume that one has to have a purpose, and then create a concept to give one that purpose?

It isn't up to Athiests to "prove" there isn't a God: it is up to one who proposes a supernatural entity to establish that entity. Otherwise, I can claim that a purple duck farted your great, great grandpappy into existence and claim that it was up to you to prove it didn't...

When it comes to any God: you claim he exists, you provide evidence.

Answer 11

If I choose to voice my opinion and say There is No God, then I have the right to. I hear about God everyday, spoken as fact. Why be hypocritical?