Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?

[Brian37]

Is there an argument for atheism?

There shouldn't be, imho. If atheism is simply "I don't know 100% if God/s exists, but there is not enough proof to convince me personally that He does, so I will continue to live and think as though He doesn't unless more evidence is presented", I don't know how that can be any sort of argument for the non existence of anything.

No, you like the idea. You see others buying into that same idea. Someone introduced you to the idea. So what? Most humans get raised in the religion their parents sell them. Again, you are in the same boat as any Mormon, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu ect ect ect.....

Our species gap fills because that is easier to find comfort in than to face the reality that we are not important to the planet or universe and we are finite. You assume your god exists just like people of other religions assume they got it right. 

Do you have to argue for the non existence of invisible pink unicorns? Do you automatically assume before hand that I am dating Angelina Jolie? The burden of proof is on you, not us. Otherwise send me 500 bucks to a Nigerian e mail because lucky you, you won the Canadian lottery, but I need 500 bucks for processing fees and legal fees to send you the 75,000.

Funny how everyone of every religion claims they got it right on top of liking it too. How convenient your god coincides with what you like believing.

[Esquilax]

Adult conversions is a good measure of how the population overall subjectively assesses the evidence for Christianity. If you have a different theory that would explain the effect, please provide.

Human history is a constant process of new technologies and viewpoints allowing for an expansion in the scope of our knowledge, during which time old truisms are often questioned, revised or dismissed entirely? We just happen to be at the point in that history where christianity is in the questioning/revision stage, a stage being unnecessarily elongated by theistic insistence on redefining terms to fit old ideas within the new paradigms that are arising via human progress. Go back far enough and you could make your exact same argument about geocentricity, or the four humors.

It's always amusing to me how willing christians are to treat their religion as some special unique phenomenon, when in actuality it fits very well within established trends.

[SteveII]

1. I don't remember making any of those arguments, so it would seem you have in your mind an easily knocked over straw man--not an argument or theory that explains the evidence we do have. 
2. That is a theory in which the only evidence is the presupposition of Naturalism.

Bullshit. No straw man whatsoever. Our species is much older than any written or oral tradition. Evolution is far older than any religion. Other species have been around far longer and dont create gods or religions. Cockroaches and bacteria have been around far longer and don't pray to gods or create monuments to superstitions and myths.

Nope sorry scientific method does not presuppose a damned thing. You don't get to project your horrible logic on us. Typical tactic as well. When you cant prove your argument, you accuse the other of what you do yourself. Hate to burst your bubble but all religions are in the same boat, your religion is not special. Get in line, take a number. [1]

Maybe you need to think about why YOU reject all other religions besides yours, think about that. Atheists simply reject one more than you do.[2]

1. It seems you are unfamiliar with methodological naturalism--with is by definition a presupposition. It might be justified in the lab to employ methodological naturalism, it is a not justified in the social sciences (including history and psychology). By doing so, you are making a claim about the world that you cannot prove: namely, there is no supernatural. 

2. You seem to think this is an important point--wanting to put all religions in one basket. All this illustrates is that you do not know, understand, or ignore the differences between them to make a point that has no meaning.

---

Adult conversions is a good measure of how the population overall subjectively assesses the evidence for Christianity. If you have a different theory that would explain the effect, please provide.

Human history is a constant process of new technologies and viewpoints allowing for an expansion in the scope of our knowledge, during which time old truisms are often questioned, revised or dismissed entirely? We just happen to be at the point in that history where christianity is in the questioning/revision stage, a stage being unnecessarily elongated by theistic insistence on redefining terms to fit old ideas within the new paradigms that are arising via human progress. Go back far enough and you could make your exact same argument about geocentricity, or the four humors.

It's always amusing to me how willing christians are to treat their religion as some special unique phenomenon, when in actuality it fits very well within established trends.

What do you think is new that will be a detriment (in the long run) to Christianity?

[Brian37]

Bullshit. No straw man whatsoever. Our species is much older than any written or oral tradition. Evolution is far older than any religion. Other species have been around far longer and dont create gods or religions. Cockroaches and bacteria have been around far longer and don't pray to gods or create monuments to superstitions and myths.

Nope sorry scientific method does not presuppose a damned thing. You don't get to project your horrible logic on us. Typical tactic as well. When you cant prove your argument, you accuse the other of what you do yourself. Hate to burst your bubble but all religions are in the same boat, your religion is not special. Get in line, take a number. [1]

Maybe you need to think about why YOU reject all other religions besides yours, think about that. Atheists simply reject one more than you do.[2]

1. It seems you are unfamiliar with methodological naturalism--with is by definition a presupposition. It might be justified in the lab to employ methodological naturalism, it is a not justified in the social sciences (including history and psychology). By doing so, you are making a claim about the world that you cannot prove: namely, there is no supernatural. 

2. You seem to think this is an important point--wanting to put all religions in one basket. All this illustrates is that you do not know, understand, or ignore the differences between them to make a point that has no meaning.

---

Human history is a constant process of new technologies and viewpoints allowing for an expansion in the scope of our knowledge, during which time old truisms are often questioned, revised or dismissed entirely? We just happen to be at the point in that history where christianity is in the questioning/revision stage, a stage being unnecessarily elongated by theistic insistence on redefining terms to fit old ideas within the new paradigms that are arising via human progress. Go back far enough and you could make your exact same argument about geocentricity, or the four humors.

It's always amusing to me how willing christians are to treat their religion as some special unique phenomenon, when in actuality it fits very well within established trends.

What do you think is new that will be a detriment (in the long run) to Christianity?

Still not getting it. This is not about me or what I think, this is about what science has proven. And will please stop stupidly thinking it is all about your personal beliefs.

There were no religions at all 1 million years ago, much less 4 billion years ago and much less 13.8 billion years ago. If you want me to believe that in 5 billion years when our sun dies that Christianity will be the only thing left, you are a fool. There will be no Buddhism or Hinduism or Jews or Islam or any humans then. Our planet and universe were around long before humans concocted any religion and we wont be around 5 billion years from now, and our universe will continue on with absolutely no memory or record that we were even here. I am sorry you don't like that but that is your baggage.

We are finite just like trees and cockroaches and bacteria. And our planet and sun also have a shelf life. Not my fault someone sold you a bill of goods.

[SteveII]

Still not getting it. This is not about me or what I think, this is about what science has proven. [1] And will please stop stupidly thinking it is all about your personal beliefs. [2]

There were no religions at all 1 million years ago, much less 4 billion years ago and much less 13.8 billion years ago. [3] If you want me to believe that in 5 billion years when our sun dies that Christianity will be the only thing left, you are a fool. There will be no Buddhism or Hinduism or Jews or Islam or any humans then. Our planet and universe were around long before humans concocted any religion and we wont be around 5 billion years from now, and our universe will continue on with absolutely no memory or record that we were even here. I am sorry you don't like that but that is your baggage.

We are finite just like trees and cockroaches and bacteria. And our planet and sun also have a shelf life. Not my fault someone sold you a bill of goods.

1. What has science proven that somehow disproves God? I know a lot of atheists who would love to know. 
2. Why in the world would I argue about other people's beliefs? 
3. The question is not whether religion was around, it is whether God was around.

[Mister Agenda]

Methodological naturalism isn't a presupposition, and that's the kind of naturalism you'll find around here. Just give us one unnatural thing, just one, that stands up to scrutiny; and we'll change our minds.

We did. You didn't.

I must have blinked. What was it?

---

1. It seems you are unfamiliar with methodological naturalism--with is by definition a presupposition. It might be justified in the lab to employ methodological naturalism, it is a not justified in the social sciences (including history and psychology). By doing so, you are making a claim about the world that you cannot prove: namely, there is no supernatural. 

Methodological naturalism makes no truth claim. It is a method, a strategy, used in science for pragmatic reasons.

[Brian37]

Still not getting it. This is not about me or what I think, this is about what science has proven. [1] And will please stop stupidly thinking it is all about your personal beliefs. [2]

There were no religions at all 1 million years ago, much less 4 billion years ago and much less 13.8 billion years ago. [3] If you want me to believe that in 5 billion years when our sun dies that Christianity will be the only thing left, you are a fool. There will be no Buddhism or Hinduism or Jews or Islam or any humans then. Our planet and universe were around long before humans concocted any religion and we wont be around 5 billion years from now, and our universe will continue on with absolutely no memory or record that we were even here. I am sorry you don't like that but that is your baggage.

We are finite just like trees and cockroaches and bacteria. And our planet and sun also have a shelf life. Not my fault someone sold you a bill of goods.

1. What has science proven that somehow disproves God? I know a lot of atheists who would love to know. 
2. Why in the world would I argue about other people's beliefs? 
3. The question is not whether religion was around, it is whether God was around.

Stop making this about your personal belief. You are wasting my time and yours if you think I should treat your pet deity claim any differently than any other. Making a sales pitch is not evidence and that is all you are doing. 

"Disprove Allah"...... Still make sense? "Disprove Yahweh"....... Still make sense? "Disprove Vishnu"........ Still make sense? 

We do have a very natural explanation as to why humans make god claims, and it is as simple as you liking the idea. But you are a fool if you think your god claim is special or the only one in human history ever made.

[SteveII]

---

1. It seems you are unfamiliar with methodological naturalism--with is by definition a presupposition. It might be justified in the lab to employ methodological naturalism, it is a not justified in the social sciences (including history and psychology). By doing so, you are making a claim about the world that you cannot prove: namely, there is no supernatural. 

Methodological naturalism makes no truth claim. It is a method, a strategy, used in science for pragmatic reasons.

But it does when used in the social sciences! It assigns evolutionary theories by fiat (certainly not with any kind of proof) to questions like "how did religion evolve?", "how did morality evolve", etc. when a theistic worldview has very different answers to those questions.

[Mister Agenda]

Um, you know that 'evolve' in that context just means 'change over time', right?

[Brian37]

---

Methodological naturalism makes no truth claim. It is a method, a strategy, used in science for pragmatic reasons.

But it does when used in the social sciences! It assigns evolutionary theories by fiat (certainly not with any kind of proof) to questions like "how did religion evolve?", "how did morality evolve", etc. when a theistic worldview has very different answers to those questions.

NO, religion sells made up answers. Scientific method is a tool, it is not a religion and it is not a worldview. You are stupidly equating a hammer to what humans want the hammer to be. Scientific method does not prop up Christianity or Hindu or Buddhist or Jewish or Islam or any religion. Scientific method is why computers work in any country regardless of the religion of the user. Scientific method is why doctors exist regardless of the religion of the doctor or patent, and doctors exist in every nation. Scientific method is why an airplane will fly regardless of the boarders it is flying over or the religion of the pilot or passengers. 

"Theistic worldview" is a position, not a tool. Scientific method is a tool, not a position. Just like the assembly instructions to a bicycle is a tool you use to assemble the bike. Religion are simply made up answers as to how you think the parts got there and who has the sole right to tell others how the bike gets assembled. Scientific method doesn't give one shit what your personal beliefs are. It works regardless of your personal beliefs.

Ask a Muslim they will claim Allah is the source of human morality. As a Jew they will say Yahweh is the source of human morality. Ask a Buddhist and they will say Buddha is the source of their morality. But funny we can see acts of compassion in other species such as elephants whom protect their young and even mourn their dead. Our morality IS NOT coming from a religion or holy writing. Our morality is coming from evolution and other species show the same acts of compassion and cruelty to other species and even to their own members. We are NOT above nature, we are not an apex, we are not special, we are merely 1 species among many.