It is reasonable to believe that God doesn't exist

ARGUMENTS Argument from Scripture The Old Testament I think it has been well established that the Bible is not a scientific record. The Old Testament is widely regarded as almost complete fiction. The advancement in Science in the last 400 years has disproven the possibility of almost the entire account. A metaphor is simply a relabeling of a fictional story with some supposed moral value. However, given that most of the Old Testament is horrific and at times contradictory to what Jesus later taught, its presence in the modern Bible is confusing. The New Testament Again, the gospels are hardly scientific record. When we look back on the scientists and philosophers of history, like Archimedes or Aristotle for example, we can see that a lot of what they believed was completely incorrect. However, they did make correct observations using the scientific method of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Looking back, we can see what they did right and what they did wrong. More importantly, we can see why they were wrong and work to improve on their knowledge. This is not the case with the Bible. Unchanged for nearly two thousand years, have modern things been added to account for well, modern things? What does the Bible say on the Internet, or Cardiology, or Genetics? The answer is obviously, nothing. In fact, in terms of functionality the Bible is very lacking. It only serves the purpose of furthering Christianity, not proving that it is factual. Argument from Morality The things that are often called ‘morals’ are actually behaviours that are integral to the formation, establishment and betterment of successful societies, both micro and macro. They can be explained with the scientifically accepted theory of Evolution. Guilt can be explained by an understood chemical process in our brain. If every man, women and child felt the same guilt about the same things, we might have a reasonable argument for objective morals from the divine, but they don’t. The ability to see what is right and wrong doesn’t exist, since a constant example of right and wrong doesn’t exist. Most things that are thought of as wrong might also be ok in a certain context or in a different culture. Besides, the Bible is rather vague about what is specifically right and wrong. Not one single commandment given to Moses is wrong in every context. Killing is generally wrong, but it’s ok if its purpose is to protect your loved ones or if you’re fighting for your country. Stealing is ok, if it saves a child from starvation. Having sex with a child is wrong, but marrying and consummating with a child is ok in certain cultures. Think of the most abhorrent act you can possibly think of; snuff movies involving the rape and mutilation of children. Now, there are some underground consumer ‘need’ for such a thing, since we know individuals exist that not only desire this but lust for it. Within this underground community, these acts are thought of as ok, because as wrong as the perpetrators may or may not know that these are, the desire to commit them, for whatever reason, is stronger, thus making it ok in that context. My point is that both the Bible and the existence of a moral God are contradicted by what we see in our environment; massively varied moral codes between cultures made up of almost identical organisms. Argument from Ignorance In science, there are two types of unknown. There is the known unknown; we know the question but we don’t know the answer. There is also the unknown unknown; questions about the fabric of nature which we haven’t yet thought of or needed to ask. Here are two examples of known unknowns: We know that life exists on this planet, but we don’t know exactly how it originated. We know that the universe exists, but we don’t know exactly how it originated. The fact that we don’t know the answer to these questions doesn’t support the existence of a creator. In regards to these questions, it is better to continue to further the accumulated knowledge of mankind on these subjects and accept your ignorance, rather than make assumptions. Fortunately science provides many theories to the above two questions and provide reasoning and evidence to support them; they use the proven mathematical formulas of their respective sciences to support them. CONCLUSION I have focused on Christianity in this first round, but will branch out into Islam and Judaism if needed. The arguments are essentially the same. Science explains everything; it is the study of the natural world. In order for something to be accepted as scientific fact, it must go through the rigors of the scientific arena and be scrutinised viciously by the proponents peers before it is accepted by any majority. Theology explains nothing; it is the study of the supernatural world. In order for something to be accepted as theological fact, it seems to need only come from the mouth of some snake-oil merchant preacher and heard by ignorant people. To the theist, faith must outweigh reason, however insignificantly, otherwise you are agnostic. The resolution is that it is reasonable to believe that God doesn’t exist. Given that we have no scientific reason to believe that the Universe was created by a sentient being or that Mankind was created in the image of said sentient being, the Atheists position is reasonable.