Daniel Dennett - Arguments for Atheism?

Turn the tables on God's existence. Start with atheism, not with theism. Atheists take their best shots at disproving God; theists in turn defend God, deflecting anti-God arguments.

Closer To Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[jeffersonianideal]

Before a person answers the question about the probability of the existence of "God", the term "God" must be defined.

[bms]

Yea science isn’t claiming that there is NO god, it just doesn’t point to anything showing that there IS a god. Science doesn’t claim either proposition but someone making the positive claim should be able to demonstrate that claim. Such an easy concept

[christophermallett]

I recently saw a video where a guy (arguing on behalf of Islam) said that "if as a non believer you don't know the answer, then 'I don't know' is good enough, don't pretend to know the answer"... I'm not sure if he is aware just how ironic that statement actually is.

[billmcdonald]

As succinctly as I can put it: "I ain't buyin' what the theists are sellin'."


That's atheism. No more, no less.

[frankkockritz]

There is simply no argument for God that stands on its own in anyway, whatsoever. When we die, we simply cease to exist. This outcome follows the Occam’s Razor principal. It aligns with everything we know of physics, the second law of thermodynamics and so on. Even if we live in a simulation, the programmer is pretty heartless and cruel

[TerryUniGeezerPeterson]

If you disobey any of God's commandments, he will send you to hell to burn in agony for all eternity... but he loves you. (Paraphrased from George Carlin).

[jessewallaceable]

I love the 'incomprehensible spirit of goodness' idea.

[paulcouillard]

This is the best Closer-to-Truth video.

[George]

Argument for atheism: It appears to be the case. Truth matters.

[gigisdad]

The Kryptonite angle is an ingenious analogy.

[danf]

As a biologist and chemist the physical world became very dynamic and dramatic via the standing factual elements and history. It also stirs personal inward curiosity regarding my gift of life.

[seascape]

Am I the only person who thinks Daniel Dennett is really Santa Claus?
What a great way for Santa to remain incognito for the rest of the year!

[dominicdiorio]

The new atheist movement would be taken a lot more seriously or reverence by theists if they were all like Dan. Smart, yet calm and collected.

[alfredorezende-popg]

Before defining an entity, one needs to know where is the limit of what can be undefined

[enaidealukal]

As an atheist I find Dennett's argument here to be unsatisfying. Certainly, in science the burden of proof is on the new theory, the theory seeking to challenge the established theory. But this has no applicability in metaphysical questions like the existence of God: there is no established theory, there is no Newton or Einstein. So the burden of proof is shared equally.
And in order for atheism, rather than agnosticism, to be warranted we need something more than just saying that theism hasn't successfully made its case: we need a positive case for atheism over and against both theism and agnosticism. The good news is, that isn't impossible to do, because theism plausibly DOES make some empirical claims and predictions about how the world is, and so making the case for atheism involves rolling up your sleeve and looking at + compiling the evidence from a bunch of different relevant areas: the evidence for special creation over and against naturalistic cosmology and/or evolution, the efficacy of prayer, whether religious scriptures or mystical experiences ever impart any new/novel information, and so on. And the evidence is pretty much what we'd expect to see, if naturalism and atheism were true, and highly inconsistent with the supposition that theism is true. THAT is what an "argument for atheism" must look like, not merely pointing out that theism hasn't sufficiently established its conclusions.

[marome]

My argument for atheism is: false beliefs leads to dangerous consequences, so we should want to believe in as little false things as possible.

[davidhunt]

When I was six and attending Baptist Sunday school, my class was given a lecture on heaven and hell, death and the afterlife. When the lecture was over, I asked, *Is there free will in the afterlife?* Apparently no one else had ever asked this question. I was told that, _No, there is no free will in the afterlife because then good deeds could be done in hell, while bad deeds could be done in heaven. But all that is already sorted out before anyone dies, so there is no room for moral agency after one is dead._ So then I asked, *If I don’t take my body with me, and I don’t take my free will with me, why am I supposed to care about having an afterlife at all?* The reaction I got was very surprising at the time, and at 65 it is still surprising. In response, I was told, _Don’t ask such silly questions, and stop being a smartass._ That was the end of the discussion.

It was not long before I made myself a prayer, which I have always kept in my heart and in my mind. *_Dear Lord, let it be your will that will direct my life. Not as I would choose, nor as any person would choose, nor as any religious text would choose, but as you, dear Lord, would choose for me. This being done, I am content._*

[Liberated_from_Religion]

“Atheism is a natural result of intellectual honesty.” (Paulo Bittencourt)

[philosophicaljay]

I love Daniel Dennett, but I think that he could have done better here.
There are other good arguments for a godless universe.
He is right that the burden of proof is on the theist, but I think that any theist that accepts the concept of faith will have a messed up view of the burden of proof, leaving to people either having to provide reasons to accept the godless hypothesis or to convince people of faith to accept skepticism instead.

[themplar]

Atheism doesnt need to disprove a god. Not a single theist ever has been able to justify the claim that one does. The complete lack of evidence warrants atheism. Also atheism doesnt need arguments.. its just a position of unbelieve due to the consistent failure of theism.