From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair

Reasons Why God DoesnAt Exist
Rational arguments for Atheism


In my experience, believers hate nothing more than the burden of proof, and thatAs why they try to redefine what evidence means so that it is no longer
a fact that indicates. Because they canAt give you any facts not to point their way, so they give arguments instead of evidence u essentially word
games trying to define their God into existence with erroneous or
fallacious assumptions built into most of them. If you ever look at a list
of logical fallacies, you might notice that every one of them has been used
as an argument for God, and in my experience, every argument for God
involves at least one logical fallacy and usually more than one. Following,
I will list that as one of many facts and evidence in my case against God.

Of course, the fact that the first fact in evidence against God is that
there is no evidence for God, we have to start there because logically
having no reason to believe something is a pretty good reason not to
believe it, especially when such is neither probable nor even possible. We donAt get to say that anything is possible because we know too many things that are not; a cow cannot jump over the moon, for example. ThatAs not just improbable; thatAs physically impossible. In order to say whether something
is possible, there must be a precedent or a parallel or verified phenomenon indicating that such possibility exists. We donAt have that for gods or
ghosts or demons or souls or for magical enchantments like blessings or curses. So not only is none of that evident, itAs not even a possibility to consider.

Believers canAt even give a consistent definition of what their God is supposed to be. Neuroscientists understand the mind to be an emergent
property of the brain, so the notion of a disembodied mind is nonsense, and itAs contradicted by scripture as well. Because while modern theologians
have contrived some lofty exaggerations of what theyAve built their God up
to be, letAs not forget GodAs humble beginnings in ancient mythology. The Bible tells us that God walks, talks, eats, turns his head, waves his hand, shows his backside, and cheats at wrestling. It says that Adam, Abraham,
and Moses all spoke to God face to face, and that seventy of the Elders of Israel were allowed to look upon God in physical form.

But whether God has a body or not, thereAs no explanation given for how
this God even could exist, much less how it does anything, and the sacred fables all say ridiculous things like how he created the first man with a Golem spell. Well, he created everything else with an incantation, speaking everything out of nothing, abracadabra, just like so many pagan gods did,
like the Native American God Coyote who made the mountains and the rivers
and who put the salmon into the rivers, or the God of Hindu mythology, Vishwakarma, who is often credited as the divine architect and engineer of
the gods responsible for designing and building their celestial abodes, weapons, and vehicles. ThereAs no explanation for how he made or put
anything or how gods do anything; itAs all a process of pure f***ing magic.

Then thereAs the fact that it doesnAt matter which faith we focus on; no religion can show that theyAre any more accurate than every other faith.
The same goes for their scriptures too. The Jewish Torah, the Christian gospels, the Quran of Islam, the Ketov, the Guru Granth of the Sikhs, the Hindu Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Bhagavad-gita, The Book of Mormon, and so on, have all been declared by some devotees to be the absolute truth and
the revealed word of the one true God, even when they canAt agree on who or what that God is. Everyone knows that every word of all these supposedly sacred publications was scribbled by scribes, mere fallible men who
obviously had no idea what they were talking about because every supposedly god-breathed doctrine is full of errors. For example, everything the Bible
or the Quran says about the Earth in relation to the rest of the cosmos is flat Earth cosmology from the Iron Age, so they couldnAt have been written
or given or dictated by any gods or angels because they would have known better.

We have sufficient evidence in science to prove that Adam and Eve are genetically impossible and were not real people. The global population
cannot have been derived from a single couple, not six thousand years ago,
nor even 600,000 years ago. We descend from a particular population of apes numbering several thousand strong at least, who set out on the road to our lineage at least a few million years ago. To be clear, this is a matter of objectively demonstrable scientific facts, not assumptions. Physical anthropologists and paleo primatologists can show how humans and
chimpanzees share a common ancestry is an objectively verifiable fact in
the absolute sense that it doesnAt change, meaning that it will not be corrected by new information. ItAs not just a probability; itAs a
certainty.

Cultural anthropologists can also show how we know that the tale of the
Garden of Eden is nothing more than a fable composed of several tropes and characters showing the apparent influence of elder religions in neighboring regions. ItAs only possible truth depends on metaphorical interpretations; there is absolutely no truth of any part of that story. Otherwise, archaeologists assure us that the same goes for the Tower of Babel and even The Exodus. Historians agree that Moses never existed; he was a legendary character, but he wasnAt real.

Then paleontologists, geologists, geneticists, and practically any other
Earth and life scientists can disprove the global flood of NoahAs Ark. The Bible and the Quran both imply that this was a global event, flooding the whole world, and that everyone alive today is a descendant of Noah. But we have literally tons of rock-solid proof from many independent fields of
study that itAs just a story; it never happened, not the way it says in anyoneAs scriptures. ItAs not just that it couldnAt have happened, but even
if it could have, by some flurry of miracles, we still have an overwhelming preponderance of evidence to prove that it didnAt happen. So the Bible and
the Quran are both wrong, not just about that, but practically everything
else of importance too.

ItAs not just that all the scriptures are laughably wrong about practically everything scientifically and historically, ethically and morally; itAs
that outside of these assorted doctrines, we see that the fact that belief
in any God doesnAt have any apparent impact on the personAs morality.
Instead, and even worse, there are criminal studies showing that the more religious one is, the more likely they are to be bigoted, intolerant, and abusive, favoring violent vengeance over rehabilitation or restitution. Comparative amount analysis of child molesters even decades ago showed this statistically: the more religious an abuser is, the more abusive they were, with more and younger victims. Whereas programs like the clergy project
reveal that when people stop believing, they become more tolerant, more curious, liberal, less bigoted and judgmental.

And why are so many people leaving religion? Because of the fact that all
the worldAs religions combined canAt even show that thereAs a there
othereo, that there is anything supernatural at all. ThereAs no
discernible, verifiable truth to any supernatural place, just subjective impressions and baseless assumptions. Any claim of facts in evidence of the divine or of anything supernatural always turns out to be nothing but
frauds, falsehoods, and fallacies, which ought to matter to you if the
truth matters to you at all, if you want to understand knowledge as distinguished from make-believe.
Get Pradeen Krishna GAs stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Yet all the major religions require faith instead, where youAre supposed to believe whatever they said simply because they said so. I think all of us would agree that faith healers and self-described exorcists are famously fraudulent, yet we ignore that Jesus was running the same game as they are, just another superstitious cult leader. The people who have dedicated
decades of their lives to the study of near-death experiences have lost
faith even in that, coming away admitting that thereAs still no substance
to it after all this time, over half a century, and thereAs still very few cases without a clear explanation. ThatAs not what they predicted 50 years ago, and the failure there, according to all of the neuroscientists, neural philosophers, and brain surgeons IAve listened to, is the fact that there
is no support for mind-body dualism, neither in neuroscience nor even in philosophy.

ItAs not just that thereAs no evidence right where it should be, right
where it would be if we had an animating immortal spirit; itAs that we have
so much evidence against it to confidently conclude that we donAt have
souls. Without an immortal supernatural soul, there canAt be an afterlife, thus no heaven or hell, and without them, the notion of a God is largely
moot. This doesnAt make a lot of difference in Islam, since the Quran talks about a physical heaven where our bodies will be reanimated such that we
will still require food even in hell, where roughly 80 percent of the world would spend eternity if Islam was correct. Fortunately, Islam is not
correct; there is no hell, and God doesnAt operate an invisible hotel in
the expanse of the non-existent firmament either. Regardless of what God or religion it is, hell is inconsistent with God. If there was a God, there
still wouldnAt be a hell because no God would allow it.

If we are to believe what the scriptures say about God being infinitely merciful and just, those two are already in contradiction with each other
and both contradict the description of God as a righteous judge having
wisdom or love or any of that, which contradicts everything required to torture everyone mercilessly, relentlessly, forever and ever over a thought crime. The Quran repeatedly says that simply believing equals doing good
and that not believing equals doing evil. So Islam is just like
Christianity in that we are not judged on morality but on gullibility
because we are judged and damned forever over what or whether we believed.
And hell would still be grossly unjust even if we knew God existed.

We have no evidence to compel beliefs, so hell becomes exponentially worse.
No God would want or allow something so petty and vindictive, and such is obviously just an excuse that theologians made up so that those who didnAt believe in the impossible promise of a posthumous reward might believe in
the threat of a fate worse than death if they donAt believe, for the
purpose, of course, being the manipulation of the masses toward the
ultimate goal of enriching and empowering the clergy. This is only circumstantial evidence against God, but itAs worth mentioning.

This is especially bad in Islam because the Quran says a few times that God decides who will believe and who wonAt, so we donAt even have free will; instead, we submit to GodAs will as if weAre just his playthings, and heAs going to punish us for whatever he forced us to do. Thus, belief in God is inconsistent with both free will and objective morality, which is a contradiction of two of the most popular reasons Believers cite for why
they believe and why we should believe.

And note that their most popular reasons for believing have nothing to do
with evidence; again, as always, belief is assumed in lieu of evidence and maintained despite all evidence to the contrary. Evidence is a body of
facts, objectively verifiable data indicating one conclusion or eliminating another. If the truth is what the facts are, then there is no significant
or spiritual truth in any religious doctrine, but there are a hell of a lot
of lies in all of them.

Thus, we have nothing at all to imply that there even could be a God, but ample evidence everywhere to show that God is a fantasy, phantasm, nothing more than wishful thinking. The holy doctrines of the various religions
remain the only source of information of who or what God is supposed to be, and they violently contradict each other. This is another fact against God; each of these tomes is individually full of absurdities and atrocities, inconsistencies and contradictions, so that none of the authors of these
myths and legends actually knows what theyAre talking about. Nearly
anything any of the scriptures says falls into one of two categories: itAs either not evidently true, meaning thereAs no evidence for it, or itAs evidently not true, meaning itAs already been shown to be false.

The fact that the Bible and Quran and all the rest of this man-made
mythology even exists in such defective, conflicting condition is evidence against God, who should have corrected all that. And despite all attempts
at philosophical rationalization, there is no actual factual evidence of
God outside of scripture either. Literally, not even a possibility to
consider the claim that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving Creator
God exists is logically inconsistent and paradoxical due to the presence of suffering in the world. In a world that is, as Darwin described it, red in tooth and claw, the persistent existence of such a level of suffering throughout the yearsA history, as well as the extent of that history,
remains in conflict with the attributes attributed to such a God. Moreover, considering the lack of logically coherent, verifiable evidence for the existence of the Abrahamic God specifically, it is reasonable to conclude
that the claims of such a deity are just a myth.

It is essential to adhere to the fundamental principles of logic, which necessitate evidence and demonstrability when affirming the truth of a
claim. Holding an absolute positive belief in anything, let alone something that lacks reliably verifiable truth or proof, rather violates these principles, rendering the claim of an Abrahamic God as not only a myth but
a baseless speculation having no more credence than a claim that has
already been proven false.

Very often, believers may already know that thereAs no evidence of God or anything supernatural, but theyAre determined to make believing it anyway
for reasons that donAt qualify as reason. So they have to find a way to
shift the burden of proof onto the negative claim or to onto someone who doesnAt believe in their unsupported assertions of illogical, irrational, impossible absurdity. I mean, it should be that if you make a claim, you
have to substantiate it or be dismissed and discredited for stating falsehoods. But faith is the most dishonest position it is possible to have because claiming facts that arenAt facts and pretending to know things you donAt know is what faith is all about. But in every other application, we would call that lying. The only way that faith could be any less honest or
any more dishonest is if youAre a religious apologist, asserting
speculation without reason and defending it against all reason is what apologetics is all about, making up any and all excuses to justify
doctrinal errors and/or to systematically dismiss or ignore any and all evidence against an a priori belief to defend the faith even in those instances where you know itAs not true.

So they resort to an appeal to ignorance as if they can assert whatever
they want without any justification at all. And they think that they can
refer to such lies as the absolute truth until or unless we can prove it false. Then apologists will still call it truth even after itAs been thoroughly disproved because faith means never admitting when youAre wrong. Because one of the problems with a faith-based belief system is that there
are required beliefs and prohibited beliefs where youAre forbidden to admit certain truths that may call the faith into question because you have to believe a particular interpretation of doctrine no matter what, or else
face the empty threat of eternal damnation.

Additionally, thereAs usually an emotional attachment to certain faith
beliefs and often culturally conditioned deep-seated need to believe that overrides our natural desire to understand. In either case, it means that
the believer has to come up with some excuse, has to find any excuse to
keep on believing even when they know itAs not true. As has happened a few times, people have admitted to me that they know itAs not true, but theyAre going to believe it anyway. So they make up arguments instead of evidence, arguments that all require specific assumptions and typically depend on
false dichotomy, where only two options are allowed, and no others may be admitted because the goal is not to seek the truth but to avoid
uncomfortable truths in defense of the faith.

My problem is, I canAt relate to this. I canAt choose to believe whatever I want to, especially when itAs apparently indefensible when there is no
truth to it. The difference in my position is that I want to know whatever
the truth is, regardless of what I might rather believe, whereas the
faithful just want to believe whatever they want to, regardless of what the truth is. Judging by several admissions IAve heard, these so-called True Believers apparently donAt even care what the truth is; they want to make believe something else instead.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2