What are some arguments atheist people use when dealing with the existence of god?

Answer 1

The Problem of Evil is one of the strongest.
The Paradox of Omnipotence and Omniscience
Argument for Atheism (Assuming God Exists)

Those are only 3. There are hundreds, if not thousands, more.

Answer 2

OK. Here's my version of the argument against belief in the existence of God.

First, you have to define the term "God." The problem with most theists is that this term is a moving target.

In addition, because there is no evidence either for or against the existence of God, you cannot use deductive logic (a+b=c; therefore c-b=a). You can only reach a conclusion by inductive reasoning using the balance of evidence (90% of A is also B; C is B, so the chances are 90% that C is also A).

I will assert (and others may shoot this down) that the only RELEVANT definition of God states that he intervenes to circumvent natural laws.

If God circumvents natural laws, then it is impossible to understand natural laws. All scientific findings would have to include the stipulation, "it is also possible that these results are an act of God, a miracle, thereby making our research meaningless."

However, since we have been able to expand our knowledge of natural laws (evidenced by every appliance in your kitchen), the scientific method works in this discovery. And the likely conclusion is that God, at least the intervening kind, does not exist.

Additionally, if God is defined as all loving, all powerful, and all knowing, then it is impossible to explain suffering. Either God is not all loving (he acts sadistically), not all powerful (he cannot prevent suffering), or not all knowing (he created suffering by mistake because he didn't know the consequences of his actions).

If God is less than these and/or does not intervene in our existence, then he is either non-existent or irrelevant. The classic argument is that I cannot prove that a china teapot is orbiting the sun directly across from the earth's orbit. But while I cannot prove this is not true, the evidence against it is compelling.

The evidence against God is equally compelling, and while it is not possible to prove beyond any doubt, it makes more sense to live your life as if there were not God.

It is more compelling to me that humans have invented God to reflect the thoughts of the ruling powers in a particular time. Because humans are always looking for reasons, when none are found, it was the natural inclination to declare the cause to be "God" (or gods). As the faith grew, miracles and laws have been ascribed to this Divinity, and an orthodoxy grows up around it.

Successful religions over the long run also are accompanied by some level of economic well-being to the populace. Unsuccessful ones are seen as false because they don't lead to improved lives.

Now it seems unhelpful to believe in such superstition. The only matters that aid in our ongoing well being are work, location, health, sustenance, and pure, blind luck.

So that's why I don't believe God exists. And you know what? It's okay if you do believe God exists.

Answer 3

I think all (or most) athiests base their disbelief in God on logic.

Logic: if something is claimed without evidence, then it's probably not true.

Is that not what God is? There is no evidence of God, only faith. As an athiest I don't see the logic in the existence of God at all: no evidence, only some old physically impossible stories and a really old book, written by human beings.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

I guess my answer to the question is that they've come to their own conclusion using their own logic: lack of evidence.

Answer 4

That there is no testable, verifiable evidence of the existence of any god at all.

That the claims of every "holy book" in the world are highly questionable at best.

That the entire concept of the Christian God is an anthropomorphization of world forces that the desert nomads could not control.

That the authorship of the books of the Bible are questionable.

That the "miracles" of Jesus were somehow completely overlooked by the historians of the day.

I could go on...

Answer 5

Well the only one that matters is the one that states that there is no god.
The burden of proof does not rest upon me to disprove a negative, but on the person who states that such creature actually does exist.

The next person that provides credible proof for the existence of god, will be the first in history to do so.

Answer 6

(1) That there has been no 'scientific' evidence of a 'God'. (2) With so much violence in the world, how could there be a 'God" (3) And that religion is just a form of conformity.

Answer 7

http://infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/arguments.html
There stuff on there about proving a negative that was quite surprising. Also it includes different kinds of arguments against the existence of god. They are divided into logical and evidential arguments.

Answer 8

They consistently say that "God doesn't exist" which is a empty weak blanket statement with no proof and the burden of proof is on them. It all about finding out for themselves and not be slothful in their search. Believers were once atheists too! They sought God for themselves. They reside in this section 24/7 daily and its a daily futuristic makeover from a life of immorality and sin.

Answer 9

Pat Robertson.

Answer 10

If your taught that elves caused rain, then every time it rained you'll see proof of elves.