Debunking God and Religion in a Single Sentence

Recently, I was challenged to provide "the most powerful argument, in one sentence, that belief in God and religion is nonsense." Now, I honestly don’t know if the person asking the question was a theist or an atheist or something in-between, but I had to laugh at the artificial stricture placed on any answers. One sentence? Why just one sentence instead of, say, a well-reasoned paragraph or two that might allow one to flesh out the argument a bit instead of just providing an easily dismissed sound bite?

[In fact, the more I think about it, the more I can’t help thinking of that old game show “Name that Tune.” “I can debunk God and religion in one sentence!”]

Anyway, there were certainly lots of ways to approach this challenge. I could, for example, have mentioned the sheer number of religions in the world and the fact that so many of them are mutually exclusive. I could have discussed the lack of any compelling evidence or sound arguments to support a belief in God. But, since the challenge was specifically to provide an argument that belief in God and religion is “nonsense” (and not just improbable or irrational), I finally decided to go with the following:

The original concepts of gods and religions were the product of ignorant and superstitious people who had little or no understanding about the world or the universe and our place in it, and just about everything else they thought they knew to be true has now been proved to be false.

Yeah, it’s a bit clunky, but that’s what you get when you expect somebody to cram an entire argument into a single sentence. Overall, though, I’m satisfied with the way it came out and I think it makes a valid point.

Of course, as expected, people immediately began taking cheap pot shots at my answer, demanding that I provide “citations” to “scientific evidence” to support my assertion that the people who first invented religions were largely ignorant about the world and the universe. Seriously? I need to prove that people living thousands of years ago, without access to any of the technology we have today, didn’t know as much about the universe as we do today?

Well, I don’t know about any “scientific evidence” of their ignorance that I can cite, but fortunately there’s this wonderful invention that actually allows me to see backwards through time and know what ancient people were thinking when first describing their gods and coming up with their religions, as well as what they thought about the universe and our place in it. And it’s an invention that has actually been around for many thousands of years.

It’s called writing.

You see, we don’t need “scientific evidence” to determine what ancient people were thinking when they first came up with their religions since they were nice enough to write it all down for us. From the ancient Sumerians who chiseled cuneiform stories into clay tablets, to the people who wrote the Bible, to the writings of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, to the author(s) of the Qur’an, to the recorded Edda sagas of the ancient Norse, etc., we have an abundant treasure trove of literature that clearly indicates that the people first writing about gods and religions largely didn’t have a clue about such basic things as the fact that the earth rotates on an axis, that the earth revolves around the sun, that the stars are actually other suns unimaginably far away and not, say, pinholes in the curtain of the night, that the universe is many billions of years old, that all life on earth evolved from earlier forms of life, that diseases are caused by germs, etc., etc., etc.

Add to that all the many, many, many different “creation stories” we have from all the various world religions and you don’t need “scientific evidence” to understand that religions and gods were all invented by people with limited knowledge about, well, much of anything, really. Not that they were necessarily stupid or unsophisticated, of course, but simply unaware of things that could only be known with the help of tools such as telescopes, microscopes, rockets, computers, etc.

And please, don’t start pointing out how one particular passage in one particular religion’s holy book can, if translated and interpreted in just the right way, supposedly indicates that the author may have actually understood something about the world that most ignorant people at the time it was written probably didn’t know. Especially if you are then going to completely ignore all the other passages that are obviously just plain wrong no matter how you squint your eyes at them. Seriously, don’t tell me that “Let there Be Light” is an amazingly accurate scientific description of the Big Bang and then try to explain why it doesn’t matter that the Bible also says the Earth was created before the Sun.

Why “I Don’t Believe God Exists” Really Is the Same as “I Believe God Doesn’t Exist”

I have noticed a very odd phenomena while observing theists interacting with atheists. To wit, atheists tend to say they don’t believe that God exists, whereas theists are constantly trying to get them to admit that they actually do believe that God doesn’t exist.

Sure, there are some subtle differences between the two statements. It is certainly possible to have no opinion whatsoever on a subject and, in that case, it would only be accurate to say you don’t believe anything about that subject. After all, you can’t affirmatively believe something is false if you haven’t ever considered it in the first place. For example, you might say that a newborn baby does not believe in God because that baby can’t even grasp the concept, and it would be incorrect to sat that a newborn baby believes that God doesn’t exist.

Similarly, it is possible that there is so little information available to actually form a belief in something — no claims of evidence for or against — that it’s really only possible to say you don’t believe it and not that you actually believe it is false. For example, most people would probably say they don’t actually have a belief that there is a technologically advanced alien civilization on a planet orbiting the star Antares, but wouldn’t go so far to say that they believe there isn’t such a civilization there. There’s simply no evidence one way or another, so the default position is to lack belief without affirmatively disbelieving.

But what about when atheists talk about their lack of belief in God? Is it really any different from having a belief that God doesn’t exist? I would argue that the two statements are functionally equivalent since (a) atheists who talk about such things certainly have an opinion on the subject (or else they wouldn’t be talking about such things) and (b) there are plenty of arguments and claims of evidence used to support a belief in God as well as plenty of counter-arguments and counter-evidence to support an active disbelief in God. So, when an atheist claims that he or she does not believe in God, it is usually because they are aware of the claims for God’s existence and they have actively rejected those claims as lacking in evidence and logical soundness.

So, why do so many atheists hate to admit they believe God doesn’t exist? And why do so many theists desperately try to get them to say that they do? Well, as far as I can tell, it all comes down to a mistaken notion of the burden of proof. As one atheist I had a discussion with recently put it:

[Stating a belief that God does not exist] is a description of a strong or militant atheist, because you believe there are no gods. It is a brave statement. A belief in the existence or nonexistence of something logically requires proof or evidence, otherwise it is subject to contradiction. I am a plain vanilla atheist, one who just does not believe that gods exist. The lack of belief in anything does not require proof or evidence and is not subject to contradiction. [Emphasis added]

So, apparently, some atheists believe that stating they believe God does not exist somehow shifts the burden of proof onto them to somehow justify their affirmative belief in the non-existence of God. And, apparently, this is exactly what theists have in mind when they insist that atheists don’t just lack a belief in God but actually believe God doesn’t exist.

Except, this is not how the burden of proof actually works.

Yes, it is true that the burden of proof lies upon the person making a claim, but it’s crucially important to understand when somebody is actually making a claim in the first place.

For example, if a theist states that she believes that God exists and an atheist responds that he does not believe that God exists (or, if you prefer, that he believes that God does not exist), neither party has any burden of proof whatsoever since neither one has actually made a claim. Stating a belief is not the same as making a claim, and a statement of belief does not require justification (except, perhaps, to validate that you do, in fact, believe what you say you believe and aren’t just lying).

Here’s the thing, though. Many theists don’t just state that they “believe” that God exists. Instead, they claim that God does exist. And, not only that, they have all sorts of “proof” (including logical arguments) to support this claim that God exists. And, since they are actually making a claim, they have the burden of proof to actually provide the evidence and arguments in support of that claim and defend that evidence and arguments against any and all evidence and arguments to the contrary.

Most atheists, on the other hand, don’t ever claim that God does not exist. They claim that they don’t believe God exists, or that they believe that God doesn’t exist, but once again a statement of belief — even an affirmative statement of belief (“I believe God does not exist”) — is not a claim that carries with it any burden of proof whatsoever.

Even when atheists get into debates with theists, atheists rarely assert that “God does not exist.” At most, the atheist will provide evidence and arguments to rebut the claim by theists that God does exist and then conclude that the complete lack of good evidence and sound arguments to support a belief in God should rationally lead to a lack of belief in God.

So the whole idea of atheists who claim that God does not exist is basically a straw man cooked up by theists. But it’s a good topic for discussion, since many theists think that they can shift the burden of proof onto atheists simply by getting them to admit that they affirmatively believe there is no God instead of just that they lack a belief in God. As discussed above, however, it doesn’t matter if you assert a belief or a lack of belief, since neither statement carries with it any burden of proof whatsoever.

---

Having said all that, let me acknowledge that some atheists do, in fact, make the actual claim that God (at least the God described in the holy books of any world religion and actually worshiped by anybody) does not exist. And yes, any atheist making this claim would absolutely have the burden of proof to back up his claim. Fortunately, for these atheists, the burden of proof is actually quite easy to meet, since all one needs to do is show that (a) all logical arguments used to prove the existence of God are unsound and (b) that evidence that should be there if such a God existed is, in fact, not there. See, for example, the following:

Absence of Evidence IS Evidence of Absence

Keep in mind this only applies to the God described in the holy books of any world religion and actually worshiped by anybody. Few, if any, atheists will ever claim that no possible concept of God exists, since there are concepts of God out there that are so amorphous as to be wholly incapable of being proved or disproved. You know, the omniscient, omnipotent, intangible “spirit” God who exists wholly outside of time and space and who created the universe and then does not interact with it in any way. Sure, that sort of God could exist, but who really cares if it does or doesn’t, since it doesn’t answer prayers, doesn’t perform miracles, doesn’t proscribe moral laws, doesn’t reward good deeds, doesn’t punish bad deeds, doesn’t provide for an afterlife or a path to salvation, etc., and really only exists conceptually as a means of plugging current gaps in human knowledge (e.g., “where did the universe come from?”).

Some Random Questions for Theists

OK, I've been watching some debates between theists (usually Christians) and theists again, and as usual I thought of a bunch of questions I really wish I had been able to ask.  I'm not saying these are unanswerable questions, especially since 2000 years of formal apologetics have allowed modern theists to come up with some sort of answer to just about anything thrown their way, but I'd like to think they are questions which would, at the very least, indicate the weakness of some of their positions and assertions.

• Why do you keep asserting that the universe was "obviously" finely tuned to support life (and specifically intelligent human life), when 99.99999999... % of the known universe is utterly and completely hostile to the existence of life (let alone to human life)?  Is all the rest of the vastness of space just for the sake of decoration?


• You've said that the observed suffering in the natural world is the direct result of mankind sinning in the Garden of Eden and causing the world (universe?) to enter into a fallen state with suffering and death.  If God is all powerful, however, why did he create a universe where man's sinning would affect all of creation and not just man?  Why would God punish innocent animals instead of just punishing mankind?


• In the past, theists have claimed that the creation of the universe "out of nothing" proves the existence of God since there's no other possible explanation.  Now that physicists have described ways in which a universe could have arisen out of nothing by purely natural processes, why does it matter whether physicists can prove that this is how it actually happened?  Since you previously said God must exist because there was no other possible way it could have happened, isn't it a sufficient refutation of your "proof" that there is, in fact, at least one possible way after all?


• As a Christian, what does it matter that some percentage (that you completely made up) of humanity throughout history has had some sort of spiritual experience that lead them to believe in some sort of god or gods?  Even if that somehow proved that there was some sort of God (which it doesn't, since it would only prove at most that humans have a tendency to believe in supernatural beings), what justification is there for assuming that the "God" in question is the Christian one and not, say, the God of Islam, Zoroastrianism, Norse mythology, etc.?


• How can you claim that the Bible is evidence of the existence of God and then admit that much of it is allegorical and not to be taken literally?  Especially when, once upon a time, it was all thought to be literally true until science and evolving societal norms slowly but surely proved that more and more of it couldn't possibly be literally true??  Also, how do you determine which parts are literally true and which parts are merely allegorical??  Does it bother you that the determination of which parts are literal and which parts are allegorical has changed over time, indicating that there is no "correct" answer other than "everything is literally true that hasn't yet been shown to be demonstrably false or distasteful to our modern sensibilities"?


• On a related note, how can you claim that "absolute morality" can only come from God and then acknowledge that the only source we have for what God's morality actually is (i.e., the Bible) contains numerous laws and principles that do not apply to today's society and therefore are not absolute?


• You claim that God is necessary in order to explain what the purpose of life is, which is something science cannot do.  What justification do you have for the assertion that life must necessarily have a purpose in the first place, other than the fact that you find the notion of a life without a purpose to be too depressing to contemplate?


• Once you have "logically proven" the necessity of some sort of timeless and immaterial supernatural being in order to explain the creation of the universe and all its laws (leaving aside for the moment the question as to whether you actually did prove anything), how do you get from that supernatural being to the God of your particular religion and your particular sect of your particular religion? If you're trying to prove something, it's not enough to just say you have faith in your God or that your God personally spoke to your heart. You're perfectly entitled to your faith, but that's not the "proof" you promised to provide.

Every Theist vs Atheist Debate In a Nutshell

All right, so maybe the title of this post is a wee bit broad, but after watching (and engaging in) many debates between "Theists and Atheists" (a.k.a "Creationists vs Scientists", "Christian Apologists vs. Agnostics" or what have you), I've finally realized that every single debate always ends up following the exact same pattern.

From the atheist side comes the following points, stated in a wide variety of forms:

• There is no empirical, verifiable, reproducible evidence for any sort of God that is actually worshiped by any religion on earth (leaving open the question whether some sort of timeless, immaterial, non-interventionist, supernatural being might possibly exist beyond our ability to perceive it in any way).
• The various holy scriptures used by different religious beliefs to justify their faith are all deeply flawed insofar as they have descriptions that are at odds with reality (either readily observed or experimentally verified).  These include descriptions of the creation of the world, supposed miracles, historical events, prophecies, etc.
• Therefore, since there is no good evidence to support the existence of God and what little evidence is offered is flawed, there is no good reason to believe in God.

From the theist side comes the following points  (again, stated in a wide variety of forms):

• The holy scriptures state that the entire universe was created by God and therefore "God did it" is an all-encompassing explanation for everything in the universe.
• Atheists (or scientists) cannot completely explain every single observed phenomena in the universe and provide exact description of every single historical event or process that led the universe to be the way it is today.  And for things that do have a scientific explanation, atheists (or scientists) cannot prove those explanations to be 100% true and accurate in every single case.
• Therefore, since atheists can't explain everything perfectly and theists have a book that lets them use "God did it" as an explanation to explain everything, there's no valid reason to not believe in God.

In other words, theists and atheists are basically having two completely different conversations, and debates between theists and atheists are therefore usually "won" or lost" based entirely on how the debate is framed.  If the debate is framed by theists as "who can claim to have a source of All Truth," then the theists are going to win every time since atheists aren't actually making any claims to knowledge.  If, however, the debate can be framed as "is there any good evidence to support a belief in God or isn't there," then the atheists have a shot.

The problem comes, however, when theists almost always shift the debate away from their own burden of proof and atheists let themselves be put on the defensive as they try to prove how science has better methods of explaining the universe.  Atheists, however, don't actually need to provide an alternative explanation for everything theists claim can be explained by God, and they should really stop letting themselves get drawn into that sort of discussion during a debate.  Sure, it's awfully nice that modern science has well-tested and verified explanations for such things like how stars and planets form, how life evolves, etc., but that really has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.  Even if science had no explanations whatsoever to explain anything about the world around us, that would simply prove that "we don't know" and not that "God did it."  If a theist wants to prove that "God did it," it's not enough to simply point out that atheists don't have a better explanation -- they need to offer compelling evidence that God did, in fact, do it.

Once the debate is shifted away from "atheists can't prove that God didn't do it", it's possible to actually examine and refute any evidence offered by theists to prove that God exists.  If they go with the argument from design, point out the flaws in that argument.  If they claim their holy book is inerrant, point out all the things that it gets wrong.  If they claim that God is required to have absolute morality, point out that the Bible is full of moral laws that no longer apply today and that every single religion interprets God's laws in a different way (not to mention the fact that many atheists perform good deeds while many theists perform atrocious acts, often justified by their belief in God).  If they go with a cosmological argument that requires some sort of "creator,"point out how much of that argument depends on creative use of definitions (if you can), point out the inconsistency in claiming that everything except for God requires a creator (if you can make a special case for God, why not a special case for the Universe?), and point out that "proving" the existence of a timeless, immaterial being who -- by definition -- cannot possibly interact with the material world or be detected in any way doesn't really provide evidence of any sort of God actually worshiped by anybody.  If they resort to personal anecdotes ("I felt Jesus come into my heart") or so-called "Faith Promoting Stories" ("Little Bobby was lost in the woods and prayed, and then he was rescued!"), point out that anecdotes are not the same as evidence and that confirmation bias let's them ignore all the times Jesus didn't come  into someone's heart and heartfelt prayers weren't granted.  Finally, if they claim that a belief in God gives them comfort, acknowledge that being comforted by a belief isn't actually evidence for the truth of what is believed.


Shifting how a debate is framed isn't always easy, especially when theists know that the only way to succeed is to avoid having to actually justify their own position.  No matter how many times you try to point out that they have no good evidence for what they believe, they will constantly try to get you to provide 100% perfect explanations for everything.  And even if you do manage to shift the debate to actually discussing the evidence for God, it can be an uphill battle wading through the mountains of misinformation and, sad to say, outright lies that get offered as evidence that everything in the Bible is literally true or that religious miracles really did occur, etc.  If you know your stuff, however, and keep the debate focused on the actual topic, you might just get theists to admit that they don't actually have any good evidence for their beliefs and are relying primarily on faith instead.   And that's pretty much as far as you can hope to go, in my experience.  After that it's up to the theists (and those those in the audience watching the debate) to decide whether faith is enough to justify the way they choose to live.