If by 'most convincing', 'most persuasive' is meant, it's possible to compare, and I find only one. It's rarely used, but the best argument for theism, and the only evidence it's conceivable to present if God is withholding verifiable miracles, is the theist. If theists had a desirable quality unique to themselves that they could display, that would, in my opinion, be the most persuasive thing that they could bring to bear. It wouldn't be effective on skeptics, but it could certainly persuade fence-sitters. It's hard though, and the vast majority can't do it. Maybe if they actually had the divine on their side, they could do better at that. Their lives are the closest things to evidence that they have, it would be something at least, if, say, we really knew Christians by their love the way Jesus is supposed to have said we will.

Maybe we should start a thread asking what are the most convincing arguments for the existence of Santa Claus. Doesn't matter that we all know that he is not real (sorry), but the physical evidence would at least beat anything put forward by theists.

(March 13, 2017 at 10:09 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 12, 2017 at 8:52 pm)KUSA Wrote: You need to read what Min said again. There are no convincing arguments. There just aren't.

Same can be said for GOP policies. Both based on hocus pokus to protect the powerful whom prey on those gullible enough to buy into utopias that dont exist.

What the fuck does that have to do with this thread or my comment?

Go clean your basement up and jerk off a few times.

Hmm. Santa. NORAD tracks his movements. There are sometimes presents under trees on Christmas morning that are unaccounted for. The post office accepts his mail. Millions of children can't be wrong.

(March 13, 2017 at 12:22 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Hmm. Santa. NORAD tracks his movements. There are sometimes presents under trees on Christmas morning that are unaccounted for. The post office accepts his mail. Millions of children can't be wrong.

Numerous consistent sightings by many thousands of people around the world.

And if we choose to be ignorant of science, then we can argue that the chance of there being a world wide conspiracy between all the adults of the world to pretend that Santa Claus exists is less probable than him using some kind of means to deliver presents to every child in one night.

(March 13, 2017 at 11:59 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 11:45 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Really? Keep telling yourself that, meanwhile y'all will come out of the woodwork to engage lil Rik...

I'd rather debate him than you.  At least he doesn't move the goalposts with every fucking post.

Is that how you justify you atheists taking all those L's? I'd do what you guys would never dare do with me and ask you to provide ONE example of me moving goalposts, which should be easy to do since I apparently do it in every post.

I won't hold my breath...

---

(March 13, 2017 at 11:52 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Huggy74 Wrote:I don't see the title of the thread as being restricted to religious subjects, there are many discussions (which have nothing to do with anything religion) where in spite of proof, atheists refuse to be convinced.

So miss me with the "If I see evidence that God exists, I'll accept it" nonsense.

If you can't accept things that are easily provable, such as Denmark not having a secular government.  To this day not one of the atheists involved in that discussion has come out and admitted they were wrong, so either they still aren't convinced, or they will never admit to being convinced...

Denmark, in fact, does not have a secular government. What now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

Well congratulations on being the first atheist involved in the original debate to finally admit it.

(March 13, 2017 at 10:14 am)Huggy74 Wrote: The only reason I can think of it is that the majority of you are anti-theist not atheist, which explains why atheists must take the opposite side of an argument against a theist.

That says more about you than it does anyone else. And it's the opposite of flattering.

The fact that one feels it necessary to argue for an "omnipresent" being is in itself convincing. Probably not in the manner you seek.

(March 13, 2017 at 11:45 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 11:30 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Why?  Because it's a childish expectation?  Huggy, people don't like you.  That may have to do with your unorthodox views or it may have to do with childish behavior such as you're displaying here.  Regardless, that fact alone is enough to account for why nobody is engaging you.  You don't need to search for arcane truths about atheists to explain that fact.  And that you're claiming implicitly that your arcane explanation is the only one to account for your being ignored is easily seen to be false.

Really? Keep telling yourself that, meanwhile y'all will come out of the woodwork to engage lil Rik...

You're reasoning like a kid with Aspbergers who doesn't have the first clue about why people do what they do.

(March 13, 2017 at 12:44 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 10:14 am)Huggy74 Wrote: The only reason I can think of it is that the majority of you are anti-theist not atheist, which explains why atheists must take the opposite side of an argument against a theist.

That says more about you than it does anyone else. And it's the opposite of flattering.

Say what you will, it's the truth.

There should be absolutely no reason for atheists to band together on an argument when their position is demonstrably false and has nothing to do with religion...