ATHEISTS, please convert me to atheism?

Question

I want REAL, LOGICAL arguments. Save your sarcastic comments for other questions. I've heard them all, good and bad arguments for atheism. I just want to hear some real arguments outside from the routine song-and-dance of ignorant, sarcastic comments boosed by the atheist comraderie on here. by the way, I am currently christian, but so far, I see no real reason to convert. Please try. I will not be biased, I will judge which argument makes the most sense and give him/her best answer.

I should have specified more, I want arguments SUPPORTING atheism, not arguments BASHING christianity. those who are too ignorant to tell the difference, forget it, post whatever you want

here we go again. the ignorant atheist parasites have plagued my question with crap. I just ask for logical questions and we get stuff from chippy, such as "you believe illogical stories". WHAT I BELIEVE DOESN't matter. I'M ASKING FOR SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING ATHEISM AND I GET LIKE 5 answers of CRAP in like 30 seconds.

NO arguments so far. describe me as you wish, bash christians as you wish, but I SAID, I WANTED ARGUMENTS, not SARCASTIC CRAP

most of the answers here are all, "We cant convert you because you are in ignorant christian."

hmm... it seems that they are ignorant themselves seeing as how I asked for ARGUMENTS, not their SPECULATION / PERSPECTIVE

Answer 1

The problem is in supposing such an infinitely complex being can exist for no reason at all.

Christians think by stating their god is timeless that this addresses the problem. It does not. The issue is not time, but one of complexity. The more complex a system is the more unlikely the possibility of that state just existing without exterior context. If a system has one bit the odds are one half. If a system has two bits of complexity the odds are one fourth etc .

Christians claim a god with infinite complexity and no external context. The odds for this are essentially zero.

By external context, one means the system is part of a greater system which provides context for it's state. Usually in the form of a selection effect, but it could also be an evolutionary mechanism or designer. But Christians claim their God, was neither designed, evolved nor was part of a greater whole.

The only possible answer to this conundrum of how reality exists, it seems to me is that reality as a whole is not complex but simple. Since the part of reality we see seems complex, it must have external context. The likely reason then for the observable complexity is a huge selection effect: ( Our own existence ). Only in locally complex regions within the simple whole can beings such as ourselves evolve.

The fact we see order does not imply it is purposeful. This is another fallacy. Does the fact a hole fits a puddle perfectly imply that the hole was designed to fit the puddle? Of course not, yet that is what the creationists would have you believe. They argue the hole fits the puddle too perfectly not to be designed for it. When in reality the puddle fits the hole not the other way around. It is simply man's arrogance that makes him think the universe was designed with him in mind.

The problem with the god hypothesis is the god needs to be more complex and hence more unlikely than the reality one is attempting to explain. Saying the god just is, still leaves a much bigger question than you had to begin with.

Ask yourself what is the probability of throwing a firecracker into a hole and having a god form from the explosion. If you say small then why would the probability of this god just existing for no reason at all be any greater?

The main deficiency I typically observe in theistic reasoning ( certainly not only in theistic reasoning ) is a complete lack of understanding how to estimate probability in the presence of selection mechanisms. I suggest reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474

Here is alternative explaination for reality which neatly avoids the complexity conundrum:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0646v1.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you lie? I give you an argument and you say no one gave you an argument. At least you could try to be honest!!
This is why most of us get so disgusted with Christians on here is the constant resort to lies and complete lack of honesty followed by your resorting to childish name calling. Rather than respond to arguments you pretend they never were made. Is that what an honest person does?

Answer 2

I'm not going to bash you. We can't "convert" you. You either believe in something, or you don't. You clearly do believe in God, so there's nothing we can do about that.

The best argument for atheism is simply that there is not a single scrap of evidence to suggest the existence of invisible, magical, supernatural beings. That's it. Now believers choose to go ahead and believe in them anyway. Atheists don't. Logic should tell you that if there's no evidence, and no reason to believe in something, then you shouldn't just accept it on blind faith. But "faith" is more important to believers than logic. We can't control what is more important to you, so we can't "convert" you, no matter how much logic we try to use, and frankly, we don't really desire to.
We can't provide you with "scientific" evidence that God does not exist any more than you can provide scientific evidence that unicorns don't exist. Sorry if you think it's "crap", but then again, we don't really care. It still stands that believers are the ones with the illogical story to sell, not atheists.
Burden of proof is always on the claimant, not the ones who don't believe the claim.

The second-best argument for atheism (or non-Christianity at least) is that every aspect of the Christian story can be traced back to earlier origins, and earlier religions.

Answer 3

~~~ ed ,,,, I accept your challenge at a Non-sniping, Non-emotional "dialog" in an effort to enlighten you, pun intended, to the Virtues of Atheistic Philosophy. However I am NOT a Proselytizer. Your conversion to ANYthing must come from within,,, through Understanding. One gains Understanding from Knowledge and one's level of Wisdom. If you are searching for god then look to History for all the variations that Mankind has created. If you want to understand why there are so many Variations and how some gods have Religions built around them,,, then I suggest you begin w/the late Prof. Joseph Campbell's work on the Mythologies of Mankind. Start at the Prehistoric Era and as you study you will clearly see that the Developement of Mankind directly correlates w/the developement of the God Image. So much so that comprehensive religions were created to accommodate the Developing Mind as mankind began to aquire higher conciousness and awareness of self, environment and,,, the universe.~ The ball is now in your court. It is time to use your Freewill and make a Decision to further your Ignorance,,, or your Understanding. Don't get caught in the trap of trying to prove a negative unless you enjoy Mental Masturbation. ~~~ Namaste`

Answer 4

There are no scientific arguments to "support" atheism. Simply put, atheism is a lack of belief in God, Allah, Jehovah or whatever name you use. What the hell is scientific about a lack of belief? If you are currently Christian and see no real reason to convert, then I have a piece of advice for you. Don't convert! Why should anyone waste their time trying to convince you of something you have no intention of accepting? This whole thing is just stupid.

Answer 5

The best arguments supporting Atheism are the arguments against belief in a god. To me it is very simple. A ''god'' that created and allows the innocent (especially children) to suffer from disease, abuse, deformation, retardation,hunger and famine is not a ''god'' worthy of love or worship. If a ''god'' created all we see and also created a world full of natural disasters that randomly harm or kill innocent people then this is a ''god'' not a loving caring god and is not worthy of worship. This alone is proof that a loving god does not exist. If there is any other kind of ''higher power'' I am not concerned with it. There is no evidence that a ''god'' of any kind does exist. So simple.

Would you have the courage to change even if you realized the there is no god? I think that there are a lot of people who doubt but go on living the life of a hypocrite

I doubt that you have the ability to be unbiased based on the content of your "question''

Answer 6

I'm not interested in converting anybody to anything. As even "Saint" "Paul" is on record as saying, "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" - and that goes for everybody.

Now of course we can't "prove" God, precisely because we've defined Him as being outside our capacity to measure. But is the God idea "credible"?

Note, incidentally, that "credible" only means "consonant with the main content of our knowledge of the universe." So the canon of credibility varies as the knowledge of people varies. Therefore some people will reject the "God" idea, because their knowledge of the universe suggests that such an idea is a relic of primitive man's misconceptions of the world in which he lived, and that the facts for which "God" was supposed to account are better explained by other means. Others would take exception to this explanation, because the content of their knowledge differs.

I really don't feel like going through all the arguments "pro atheism" in a Yahoo Answer, and even if I did, time and space prohibits. It's up to everybody to educate himself as best he can, to judge which opinions are to be weighed above others, and to reach his own conclusions. In other words, convert yourself!

P.S. - You've received several excellent responses, but I see you're sticking to your preconception that all you're going to get is "SARCASTIC CRAP." Which basically corroborates the thesis I've outlined in this answer. Well, whatever you decide to believe, I hope it works out for you.

Answer 7

Here's the problem. If you do currently have real faith in the existence of god, then all the logic and reason in the world isn't going to sway you. But if you're actually questioning, then just keep questioning. Once you start coming back with your own answers that don't involve something along the lines of "the bible says so" or "it is because it is," then your eyes will start to open. Eventually, you'll see that belief in a deity which cannot be proven or even rationally accepted makes no sense whatsoever.

Answer 8

at the beginning - i might truly decide for to work out the information that scientifically instruct that greater all of us is changing to atheism than Christianity. And secondly - in case you particularly are an knowledgeable guy or woman making thoroughly recommended selections then you certainly must be attentive to all approximately each of your ideas which contain atheism and Christianity. maximum of people could be getting a non secular education besides as a scientific and worldly one. If human beings decide for Christianity or atheism out of lack of information then they're making poor selections. besides the fact that if i did no longer be attentive to approximately each of my ideas i might nonetheless decide for Christianity because of the fact if i'm incorrect then i will lead a large existence assisting others without rewards or effects ordinary yet while i'm precise then i pass to Heaven. There truly isn't a sturdy reason to be certain on atheism no count in case you're recommended or ignorant considering you cheat your self out of achievable rewards and the actual danger to fellowship with different large people who artwork at the same time to make the international a greater advantageous place.

Answer 9

I don't think you are smart enough if you have read all the great posts in here from atheists. You wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you in the brain. Read some good books. Start with "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine. Once that shows you how the Bible is all BS, you can erase your slate and begin on the deeper stuff. Read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, "God is Not Great" by Christopher Hitchens, "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris, "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris. These all say it much better than I could in a tiny 2 pt answer box.

@>}----}----

AD

Answer 10

There are no arguments for atheism. There are only arguments against theism.

The greatest argument against your own beliefs, is that the claims of Christianity are outlandish and supported by nothing of substance whatsoever. The stories regarding Jesus differ in no way from similar outlandish claims others made during that time period and in that culture.

None of the New Testament writers even claim to be eyewitnesses. Paul, and the author of Revelation both claim to have acquired their information from visions. Huh? If Jesus was a man from Paul's recent past, why would Paul not simply have asked others about Jesus? The author of Acts, which many scholars believe to also be the author of Luke, admits that he is simply retelling that which was passed down to him.

John was written later than Luke, so he was also not an eyewitness, in spite of the epilogue to that Gospel which many say is a claim to eyewitness.

Mark is filled with anachronisms and geographical errors that demonstrate he also was simply regurgitating what he had been taught - but worse, these errors suggest a long passage of time from the origin of the stories until Mark.

That leaves us with Matthew, but Matthew has plagarized parts of Mark, so he was either using Mark as a source - or a source similar to what Mark used. In either case, he is also a later writer who had no personal knowledge regarding Jesus.

So we're left with nothing of substance from the New Testament. Josephus is often cited as a non-Christian source. But, even if we accept that what Josephus wrote regarding Jesus was genuinely written by Jospehus, it doesn't matter. Josphus also writes too late to add anything substantial. At best, you might use him to prove the existence of a historical Jesus, but not to demonstrate that Jesus was God. The other secular writers often used to support a case for Christ are even later.

Even early church fathers admitted that what Christians believed was not substantially different from what pagans believed. They also quibbled about details of Jesus. Iraneus claimed that Jesus was executed at age 50. This obviously contradicts the Gospels.

If you read the footnotes in the Gospels, you will see that an inordinate fraction of the Gospels passages are also Old Testament references. It's too pronounced to be coincidence. So, either every aspect of Jesus' ministry was designed to reflect Old Testament passages, or the stories of Jesus were actually constructed from Old Testament passages. Consider that midrash - the method of constructing new theologies from mixing together passages from the Old Testament - was common practice among Jews of the time period. In light of this, which option is the simpler explanation?