Cosmo's Big Thread of Anti-Theism

Miracles prove god exists.

Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur. The existence of a miracle would pose logical problems for belief in a god which can supposedly see the future and began the universe with a set of predefined laws. Even if a ‘miracle’ could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.

Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.


Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities eg. weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test eg. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.

Note: Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular god’s ‘infinite mercy’ or ‘omnibenevolence’ involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease – all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed.

Elite athletes make first place, strange shapes appear on toast and some people narrowly escape death, but amputated limbs never regrow, mountains never move and food never spontaneously appears in front of the hundreds of children that starve to death each hour.


See also: Euthyphro dilemma, Confirmation bias, Cherry Picking.
 
Interesting topic with many views from different perspectives. First I want to clarify my understanding for some of the terms being used in comments here.

God is a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

Theism states that the existence and continuance of the universe is owed to one supreme Being, who is distinct from Creation. For this reason, theism proclaims a dualistic relation between God and the world, wherein God is a being who controls events from outside of the human world.

Antitheism is a non-comparable term referring to the belief that theism and religion are not only very likely to be invalid and false, but that they are restricting, dangerous, primitive, and offer no unique benefits.

Atheism is the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.

I was a little more than surprised to find that I would consider myself to be an Antitheist, but not an Atheist. I do believe in the metaphysical, life before birth and after death and being part of a multidimensional reality with simultaneous time in which consciousness exists on many levels of organization. But, I do not believe in the personified "God" of organized religions, that rules the universe, hands out rewards/punishments and demands worship or face eternal damnation. It seems with all religions they make you out to be flawed in some way. In many ways the belief systems instilled in many followers can do them more harm than good.

The Gods we have are ones that we create in our own image. My view is God being the Gestalt of all that is on every level. God is not something apart, but a part of everything and everything has a part in making God what it is.
 

Top