What is the best argument for atheism?

It hard to find the topmost argument for atheism. That might also be due to the fact that what atheism rejects comes in so many varieties and, thanks to a lack of uniform definitions, can always be reshaped to not fit the argument that has just been made.

For example, if I say I don’t believe Christianity has any merit, because the idea that God’s son was born of a virgin, healed people with words and then raised from the dead is an unproven and incredible assumption, it’s almost certain that somewhere someone will come forth and say “but that’s metaphorical” (regardless of the fact that most Christians appear to not think so). And well, what will a Hindu or a native American say to me debunking Christianity?

“And besides,” my opponent will let me know, “God’s/Gods’ existence doesn’t raise and fall with whether or not Jesus really lived.” And that’s true. Because even if God-who-has-brought-a-son-to-earth-to-redeem-a-sin-that-only-exists-because-he-decided-it-is-a-sin does not exist, some other God(s)-of-the-metaphor might still exist.

Even the argument “But the world works perfectly fine without assuming there’s God(s) in it!” won’t hold against my imaginary opponent because that something works without an additional, unnecessary thing doesn’t mean the unnecessary thing isn’t there.

This is precisely, why in regular circumstances I repeat: “No, there’s no evidence against some sort of God-being, but there surely is evidence against yours.” No matter what you believe, unless it is a God that has absolutely nothing, zero, zilch, niente, nix to do with human affairs and the construction of the world, and is therefore entirely irrelevant to us, your God’s existence is not perceivable. I have not heard of anyone who has ever claimed actual faith in a perceivable God, though. In the opposite – most people end up making some statement about that God that is testable against the real world – and so far, the real world has always proven them wrong. Take the Discovery Institute and its ilk, for example, babbling things about information, signatures and complexity – and wherever they end up actually defining their terms and don’t carefully avoid being as precise as they should be, their arguments fail. In the other cases, their arguments are too miserable to work with. Most of the time, their argument is even as weak as “God is needed to do x”, and usually it turns out that he really isn’t. And let’s not forget that people in the layer of the DI usually make arguments that maximally can be considered arguments for “something supernatural”, but they usually mean a very specific God. They attempt to set the foundation for a slippery-slope argument for that particular God – and they fail at the premise already.

Anyway, let’s not dwell on this and let’s get back on topic: What IS the best argument for atheism?

Fot the atheism that is so very relevant today, – that is an outspoken atheism against religion as a package – the best argument for atheism would probably be religion itself, in all its causes, premises, texts, effects and results. But for “atheism” as in “there is no God of any kind”, this might not work.

We end up where most atheists end up anyway: There is no absolute proof against the existence of “some God”, but even that God highly unlikely. The common arguments against God – no evidence, religion itself, or the invalidity of specific claims that are made about God, the emptiness of Pascal’s Wager/the ontological argument/the teleological argument, etc. – are strong arguments, but they could never rule out the last 0.000……..01% that there’s some supernatural something doing…well…something or other elusive might exist.

You’ll realize in the phrasing of the last sentence how little room there’s left tio begin with, and it’s probably just nitpicking to dwell on this elusive something that nobody truly believes in, anyway. However, it shows our awareness of the problem of having 100% proof for anything. Ever.

For me, the strongest argument has always been a double-argument because that is precisely what is needed when talking pro-atheism:

1. An argument against the Gods people actually believe in.
2. An argument against the God theologians and accommodationists like to pretend people believe in.

And these arguments are:

1. The real world shows no sign of any known Gods – in the opposite: They’d be so complex*, their origin would have to be explained in some way.
2. The elusive kind of God is entirely irrelevant to us – it might as well not exist – there’s not even a basis for your hypothesis, let alone evidence for your theory regarding that God.

…and if you don’t understand argument #2, you need to read up on the words hypothesis and theory.

---

* Oh yes, that IS a complex being. Certainly more complex than an ameba, and an ameba is already too complex to have come about without something less complex preceeding it.