Best Short Arguments

[Straw Dog]

“Brevity is the soul of wit.“ -Shakespeare

Today’s on-the-go atheist rarely has time for long form debates about the existence of gods. What are the best short arguments that cut to the chase?

1. There’s no hard evidence for the existence of a god.
2. If a god created the universe, then who or what created that god? If this god always existed, then why not just assume the same thing about existence?
3. Science explains many things that we used to attribute to gods.
4. The invisible and the non-existent are indistinguishable.
5. There are thousands of gods that most people don’t believe in. Why should yours be any different?

 

[Valjean]

Good points, all.

 

[Twilight Hue]

6. It takes a God to know a God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

“Brevity is the soul of wit.“ -Shakespeare

Today’s on-the-go atheist rarely has time for long form debates about the existence of gods. What are the best short arguments that cut to the chase?

1. There’s no hard evidence for the existence of a god.
2. If a god created the universe, then who or what created that god? If this god always existed, then why not just assume the same thing about existence?
3. Science explains many things that we used to attribute to gods.
4. The invisible and the non-existent are indistinguishable.
5. There are thousands of gods that most people don’t believe in. Why should yours be any different?

Drop them all. Religious people believe in god by their "experiences." Their Experiences is how they know "and" define god not something imaginary that has no evidence. It's not a "being up in the sky" shaping the universe. I haven't heard of any believe think in those "contextual" terms like their counterparts. Science (psychology and neurology in this case) does attribute a lot to god (many people who believe in more than one god tend to have a different definition than abrahamics)'s existence. When taken as an experience that confirms outside confirmed biases (say the design of the universe=god a creator), then it's easier to see how science of the brain and mind connects with religious and spiritual beliefs.

Since god is not spoken of as a ghost like Casper, what is the nature of the invisible are they speaking of when they argue against the existence of god (using that particular argument)?

There are thousands of gods but they are so different from each other than putting them in the same category when they are not. Of course someone who believes god is a creator wouldn't believe he is also his creation. So, how can one say "if they believe in X when you believe in Y" is a contradiction in some religious people's terms.

I'd say if one wants to disprove gods (more than one from all faiths), is to challenge their experiences. Since people don't like to be challenged by their experiences, it's more of a foregone conclusion. Cognitive dissonance is a pretty strong feeling and I don't feel it's worth it at all to convince people no god exist because they equate god to something you experience not an invisible person floating in the clouds.

 

[Straw Dog]

Drop them all. Religious people believe in god by their "experiences." Their Experiences is how they know "and" define god not something imaginary that has no evidence. It's not a "being up in the sky" shaping the universe. I haven't heard of any believe think in those "contextual" terms like their counterparts. Science (psychology and neurology in this case) does attribute a lot to god (many people who believe in more than one god tend to have a different definition than abrahamics)'s existence. When taken as an experience that confirms outside confirmed biases (say the design of the universe=god a creator), then it's easier to see how science of the brain and mind connects with religious and spiritual beliefs.

Since god is not spoken of as a ghost like Casper, what is the nature of the invisible are they speaking of when they argue against the existence of god (using that particular argument)?

There are thousands of gods but they are so different from each other than putting them in the same category when they are not. Of course someone who believes god is a creator wouldn't believe he is also his creation. So, how can one say "if they believe in X when you believe in Y" is a contradiction in some religious people's terms.

I'd say if one wants to disprove gods (more than one from all faiths), is to challenge their experiences. Since people don't like to be challenged by their experiences, it's more of a foregone conclusion. Cognitive dissonance is a pretty strong feeling and I don't feel it's worth it at all to convince people no god exist because they equate god to something you experience not an invisible person floating in the clouds.

Fair assessment. I realize god beliefs are more experiential for people. In daily life, I’m not concerned with actively convincing others that they’re wrong. It’s more a list of short responses when others inquire about reasons for lack of belief. I suppose I could just say that it doesn’t represent my own experiences.

 

[Mock Turtle]

7. If God had any self-respect, what is He doing hanging around with humans?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Fair assessment. I realize god beliefs are more experiential for people. In daily life, I’m not concerned with actively convincing others that they’re wrong. It’s more a list of short responses when others inquire about reasons for lack of belief. I suppose I could just say that it doesn’t represent my own experiences.

If I wasn't on RF, none of these questions from an atheist view would have crossed my mine, actually. I didn't even "know" I was an atheist till I found out what some people meant by god here. But I don't relate to comparing it to aliens and unicorns though. Maybe it's because how religious talk about it as if it had a body and mind. That takes more introspection from the atheist who experiencing these views but can see the context (and address it from that context) in which the religious are saying beyond the language.

 

[Augustus]

7. If God had any self-respect, what is He doing hanging around with humans?

You mean like the Fonz was supposed to be really cool, but hung around in men's toilets with schoolboy nerds?

 

[Mock Turtle]

You mean like the Fonz was supposed to be really cool, but hung around in men's toilets with schoolboy nerds?

Wasn't that fond of Happy Days - but would you (as divine creator) be proud of your creation (some are alright)? Can't even get all to worship one.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

8. The Bible

 

[Father Heathen]

4. The invisible and the non-existent are indistinguishable.

Radio waves.

 

[Valjean]

Radio waves.

Radio waves are easily detected and measured. It just requires some technology beyond our five senses.

 

[Revoltingest]

“Brevity is the soul of wit.“ -Shakespeare

Today’s on-the-go atheist rarely has time for long form debates about the existence of gods. What are the best short arguments that cut to the chase?

1. There’s no hard evidence for the existence of a god.
2. If a god created the universe, then who or what created that god? If this god always existed, then why not just assume the same thing about existence?
3. Science explains many things that we used to attribute to gods.
4. The invisible and the non-existent are indistinguishable.
5. There are thousands of gods that most people don’t believe in. Why should yours be any different?

Shortest argument to address all the issues in the OP.....
See post #1

 

[Father Heathen]

Radio waves are easily detected and measured. It just requires some technology beyond our five senses.

Right. My point was simply that invisible = nonexistent is fallacious, which isn't necessarily a defence of the god concept, since unlike radio waves, god can't be detected by other means, either.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Right. My point was simply that invisible = nonexistent is fallacious, which isn't necessarily a defence of the god concept, since unlike radio waves, god can't be detected by other means, either.

If you want a somewhat geeky example of this, neutrinos (and specifically the work of Hans Bethe) is a good one.
Bethe both identified the importance and impact of neutrinos as a hypothetical that made particle calculations work (ie. almost literally a 'god of the gaps' type concept), and declared that they could never be scientifically proven.

Eventually that was proven to be false, and neutrinos were indeed proven. Bethe's Nobel Prize winning work was key in that. The story goes that he was asked by a colleague about his original belief that neutrinos would never be discovered, and he said 'You shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers.'

Source : 10 Freaky Facts About Neutrinos, the Weirdest Particles in the Universe

To my mind, it is logical enough to hypothesize there is a God. But to go further and suggest that God's nature, you are possibly creating a God of the Gaps, or taking a dogmatic approach. As our knowledge develops, that God concept should either change accordingly, or remain static due to timeless religious convictions. Were I a believer in a God of the Gaps, a quick look at history would be enough to keep me humble, in terms of thinking I truly understood God's scope and intent.