A religious person might say:

People need to believe in god / Without god people will do bad things. Argument from adverse consequences [2]. Just because something is perceived as having good consequences if it is true, does not actually make it true. The fact that religiously free societies with a proportionally large number of atheists are generally more peaceful [2][3] than otherwise is evidence this perception is incorrect. See also: Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being (a must read). “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” – Steven Weinberg

Lots of people believe in a god. Argumentum ad populum. The popularity of an idea says nothing of its veracity. Geocentrism, a flat earth, creationism, astrology, alchemy and the occult were all once pervasive beliefs. Furthermore, religions are culturally relative and, for the most part, are inconsistent and mutually exclusive. “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen F Roberts “A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it.” – David Stevens

Smart person X believes in god or ‘You are not qualified’. Ad hominem + Argument from Authority. Invisible pink unicorns exist. You’re not an expert in them, so you can’t say they don’t. The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors. Sir Isaac Newton, one of history’s greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis. The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

God is the universe/love/laws of physics. We already have names for these things. Redefining something as ‘god’ tells us nothing. To use the word ‘god’ implies a host of other attributes and if you don’t intend to apply those attributes, using the word is intentionally misleading. “To call the world God is not to explain it; it is only to enrich our language with a superfluous synonym for the word ‘world’.” – Arthur Schopenhauer

Phenomenon X has a non-physical component. Baseless assertion. Unfalsifiable. How can you prove it? There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking. Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim. There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable. Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility. See also: Critical Thinking (a must watch), Open-Mindedness (a must watch), Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch), Delusion, Magical Thinking, Superstition, Self-Deception. “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” – Christopher Hitchens “I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, I think it’s much more interesting that way … I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything. I might think about it a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. It doesn’t frighten me.” – Richard Feynman

I can’t believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely. Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false. The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false. Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility. The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position. See also: Critical thinking (a must watch), Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch). “It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” – Carl Sagan “God is an ever-receding pocket of ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.”– Neil deGrasse Tyson

Atheism takes faith / is a religion. Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods. See also: Atheism is based on faith, Russell’s Teapot. Every human-being ever born begins life as an implicit atheist and must be taught the concept of theism or, more commonly, indoctrinated with it. Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion. Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief. See also: A Lack of Belief in Gods for a short introduction to atheism (a must watch), Sam Harris – Misconceptions about Atheism (a must watch), Putting faith in it’s place (a must watch). “To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

What would convince an atheist of a god’s existence? A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.



The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit. Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded. There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible. In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence. See also: Sunset (a must read), The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan, The Argument from nonbelief (a must read), Open-Mindedness (a must watch). “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” – Arthur C. Clark “Because if the only way the supreme creator of the entire universe can demonstrate his existence to me is to create images of Mary or Jesus on food items, I’m not impressed.” – Anonymous



I want to go to heaven. Argument from wishful thinking. The primary psychological role of traditional religion is deathist rationalisation, that is, rationalising the tragedy of death as a good thing to alleviate the anxiety of mortality. See also: Nobody can get into heaven, Hitchens on Life and Death (a must watch) Dawkins – We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones (a must watch). “I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” – Mark Twain

I want to believe in God OR I just have faith. There is a truth and reality independent of our desires. Faith simply reinforces your belief in what you would like to be true, rather than what really is. In order to better under understand this reality and discover the truth we must look for evidence outside ourselves. Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance. See also: Putting faith in it’s place (a must watch), The faith cake (a must watch). “Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements – the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life – weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be today.” – Lawrence Krauss

Believers are persecuted by atheists. Blue Laws. Anti-atheist laws. Discrimination against atheists. The written penalty for apostasy (leaving a religion) in most religions is death. Believers claim the victim and imply that non-theists gang up on them, or rally against them. No, atheists just look at believers the same way they might look at someone who claims the Earth is flat, or that the Earth is the centre of the universe: delusional. The bar theists set for perceived atheist hostility appears to be anyone simply voicing a dissenting opinion or mentioning an inclination towards non-belief. Claiming ‘persecution’ is simply a deflection for theists who are unwilling or unable to deal with open criticism. When Atheists aren’t considered the least trustworthy [PDF] group and comprise more than 70% of the population, then we’ll talk about persecution.

Where is god? (Interjection)

Argument from nonbelief. Why is it now that we have developed rational inquiry we hear only a deafening silence from a god who once supposedly engaged regularly in human affairs? Why does god not simply speak to us or appear before us as he supposedly used to? Why are we the losers in the dice roll of time? If a god places such a high value on us worshipping and believing then why not simply make its existence obvious to us? If one accepts the prevailing scientific understanding of the development of the universe, yet also believes in one of the major religions, then presumably a god sat idle for 13.7 billion years – waiting as the stars, galaxies and planets formed. Then it watched with complete and utter indifference as modern Homo Sapians evolved, struggled and died for a further 150,000 years. Finally, a few thousand years ago, this god suddenly decided to reveal itself to several people in the most primitive, illiterate and remote portions of humanity in a completely unverifiable way – and then simply disappeared. See also: Hitchens on God (a must watch). “If God had wanted us to believe in him, he would have existed.” – Linda Smith

The logical problem of Jesus. (Interjection)

If Jesus is God then presumably he is omniscient. If this is true, then when he allowed himself to be sacrificed, didn’t he do this with the knowledge that he was immortal? If so, then how exactly was it a sacrifice for him? What did he sacrifice? “If Jesus is the son of god, but also god himself, then he supposedly sacrificed himself to himself to save what he created from himself. He also, therefore, prayed to himself and begged himself not to require himself be crucified in order to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.” – Anonymous

Jesus was wholly good and moral. Assuming the figure even existed, this position is incorrect. “There’s no hell mentioned in the Old Testament. The punishment of the dead is not specified there. It’s only with gentle Jesus, meek and mild, that the idea of eternal torture for minor transgressions is introduced.” – Christopher Hitchens

Atheists are close-minded. Being open-minded does not mean accepting claims outright, it means demonstrating the willingness to consider new ones. An open-minded person is receptive to new ideas, opinions and arguments and wants to discover their real truth-value before accepting them. Atheists are generally very open-minded. Unjustified belief in the supernatural does not automatically make someone open-minded and, conversely, disbelief – pending further evidence – does not automatically make someone close-minded. Athiests simply do not usually exhibit gullibility or credulity. They maintain a standard of evidence proportional to the extraordinary nature of certain claims. They are usually open to the idea of god, but so far unconvinced by any evidence or argument put forward to support it. See also: Open-mindedness (a must watch), Sam Harris – Misconceptions about Atheism (a must watch), The Dragon in my Garage by Carl Sagan. “A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence” – David Hume

Belief gives life meaning/purpose OR Atheism is nihilistic. The question of life’s meaning and purpose is made no less important to an individual by not believing in a god. However, instead of asking “What is the meaning of life?” (which is begging the question) an atheist might ask “What meaning, if any, can I give to my life?”. Most things in life are worth doing for their own sake, they do not require an existential reason. Satisfying curiosity, experiencing love and friendship, acting charitably, delighting our senses and achieving personal goals all provide an inherit sense of gratification and purpose. Conversely, religion deprives life of any personal meaning by turning it into a form of serfdom, in which our only goal is to appease the whims of a supposed creator and follow its ‘plan’. Any impetus to seek knowledge and explore is removed because all the supposed ‘answers’ are provided. Beyond simple biological imperatives life’s purpose is what we make it and nihilism is just one of many possible approaches. For example, Naturalism would suggest that one’s purpose is to ‘foster an environment in which the species can survive, either by passing on genes or memes’. Humanism suggests it is to ‘promote human flourishing’. Post-modernism suggests it is to ‘create complex structures and interactions for the purpose of joy and understanding’. Buddhism, which is fully compatible with atheism, suggests it is to “focus on the human potential to overcome suffering and achieve peacefulness”. Perspective is important, within each of our trillion cells we carry a genetic heritage, unbroken, stretching back over 4 billion years. The Universe, in it’s silent dwarfing beauty, may not care about human life – but we do. So our brief and improbable time here may best be spent experiencing its wonders together, not in indentured servitude to an imaginary celestial dictator. See also: Richard Feynman on science and purpose [shorter] (a must watch), Dawkins – We are going to die… and we are the lucky ones (a must watch), A Reassuring Fable by Carl Sagan. “If nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.” – Joss Whedon “The significance of our lives and our fragile planet is determined only by our own wisdom and courage. We are the custodians of life’s meaning. We long for a Parent to care for us, to forgive us our errors, to save us from our childish mistakes. But knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring fable. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal.” – Carl Sagan

Science keeps changing, it isn’t reliable. The suggestion that science is unreliable because it changes is akin to believing new maps are unreliable because cartography is improving. Science has demonstrably produced the most accurate and reliable models of the universe that mankind has ever known and it is upon these models that all modern technology, medicine and industry are based. Science only appears to be erratic because of sensationalist reporting in the popular media. Science keeps changing because the tools used to perform science keep improving. When the universe of available evidence changes, scientific theories must be re-evaluated. There are no absolute truths in science; all laws, theories and conclusions can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new evidence. However, a scientific theory is the highest honour any scientific principle can obtain, for they comprise all the evidence, laws and models relevant to an observed phenomena. Theories are rarely proven incorrect and are usually refined on a time-scale measured in centuries. The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, intuition, and creativity. It is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods, but not necessarily discarding old ones. For example, when Einstein developed the General and Special Theories of Relativity, he did not in any way refute or discount Newton’s Principia. On the contrary, if the astronomically large, vanishingly small and extremely fast are removed from Einstein’s theories — phenomena Newton could not have observed — Newton’s equations are what remain. Einstein’s theories are simply expansions and refinements of Newton’s theories and thus increase our confidence in Newton’s work while providing a deeper understanding. The very same relationship applies to Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics, and to Evolution and Genetics. Science is an exercise in falsifiability. Unlike religious dogma, which presumes the truth, the scientific method is a self correcting process, an ever sharpening blade. The models used by science to explain observations and make predictions are simply the ‘most correct’ at the time. The greatest skepticism should always be reserved for inflexible positions whose proponents insist that they and their assertions are above question and examination. See also: The nature of science (Chess analogy) by Richard Feynman (a must watch), You can’t trust science! (a must watch), Science Keeps Changing – Iron Chariots, The Relativity of Wrong – Isaac Asimov (a must read). “Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.” – Chapman Cohen

Science takes faith / Science is a religion. Science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions. The main role of observation and experimentation in science is to criticize and refute existing theories. Scientific knowledge is created by asking questions and testing conjectures/hypotheses against reality. Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”. Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking. Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality. If all knowledge of science was lost, someone could potentially figure it out again. What is true remains true, and anyone could discover that truth again using the same method that revealed it in the first place. Conversely, if every trace of religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created in exactly the same way again. Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it. See also: The faith cake (a must watch), Is Science a Religion?, Skewed views of science, If science worked like religion – Dawkins (a must watch). “Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions.”– Frater Ravus

If God is the Potter, who are we to say what he does with his clay? Why would a perfect potter create an imperfect mold, order it to be perfect and then judge it based on the imperfections he gave it?

Theistic arguments which assume god’s existence are logically valid. Simply because a logically valid argument can be constructed does not imply a true premise or true conclusion. All cups are green.

Socrates is a cup.

Therefore, Socrates is green. Although the above argument is logically valid, neither its premise nor conclusion are actually true. An argument is only sound if it is valid and its premise and conclusions are true. See also: False Premise.

Assuming god exists, arguments against theist claims are illogical/fallacious. Things can exist in different contexts: God exists, in the sense that God is an idea that people have. Atheists can comment perfectly fine on the implications of belief and on god as a character without being required to believe in god. When atheists agree with the premise of a god’s existence for the purpose of showing the absurdity of a theistic argument, they may still question conclusions about god’s nature by debating the correctness of the inference. For example: God exists.

Therefore, you should worship god. Simply because a god may exist, does imply said god requires worship. In fact, a perfect god should, by definition, require nothing. This is known as a non sequitur. “There is nothing more telling of a person’s fundamental lack of perspective and humility than an insistence that if they cannot reconcile their beliefs with reality, then reality itself must be wrong.” – Anonymous