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

[SteveII]

There are no such things as super natural beings with super powers. The only place your god exists is in your head, just as made up as Apollo and Thor. The only difference between calling something a religion and calling it mythology, is that one is dead and the other is currently still popular. [3]

I am not interested in arguing about other religions. I asked specifically about Christianity. 

1. If you are talking about Christianity, you are painting with too broad a brush to make a point. Christianity does not attack science. Science has nothing to say about whether Christianity is true or not. If you think it does, you are wrong somewhere in your understand or logic. 
2.  Untestable, unfalsifiable theories. 
3. You couldn't possibly know that and your opinion doesn't much matter to me.

Nope, you are not going to lie and try to confuse "opinion" with fact. YOU have a position, you have no evidence for your position. If you had provable facts and not an unfounded position you wouldn't have to resort to falsely trying to bring the word "opinion" into this.

If you had facts there would be no need to use the word "opinion". But again, you defend the bible and others defend the Koran and others Buddha, and others the Vedas and they all have the same amount of facts to back them up. If any religion were a provable fact in a scientific reality we would have seen evidence of it 4 billion and 13.8 billion years ago. But funny that it only came around when humans popped on the scene and only started writing them down 10,000 years ago. Funny how we don't see cockroaches or trees invent religion and those are species far older than humans.

You are right that something is confused. You don't have proof of your statement above (bolded so you can't miss it). So, it is your opinion. It is as simple as that. 

A quick reminder of definitions:
Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.

So, to say that I have no evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. 
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is rationale.  The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

[Brian37]

I agree, it is not my job to support your claims. Stop right there, the rest is bullshit. How about you simply consider your claims are out of antiquity and simply flat out bad guesses?

Are you familiar with the fallacy of the appeal to novelty?  If you want to make a case for it, I am happy to listen!

"Appeal to novelty"? What the fuck does that mean? Scientific method is hardly a "novelty". If you think it is then why are you posting your bullshit arguments on a product of "novelty". I don't think products of science, like computers are a mere "novelty". Computers are pretty universal and used in every nation.

But ok, even if you want to claim I am not familiar with "fallacy of the appeal to novelty".

See if you can spot the pattern.

"The fallacy of the appeal to novelty" therefor Allah is the one true god.
"The fallacy of the appeal to novelty" therefor Yahweh is the one true god"
"The fallacy of the appeal to novelty" therefor Vishnu is the one true god"
"The fallacy of the appeal to novelty" therefor Buddha is the one true wisdom".


If your argument worked universally then anyone can use it to justify anything and all religions are true at the same time. 

Yes, science is far better than human concocted mythology. But hardly new. Advancements in science have speed up over the past century yes, and even the past couple of decades.

[Minimalist]

God must really appreciate you, Steve.  You are a true asshole.

[RoadRunner79]

 Things like a global flood or striped goats are indeed ruled out by science.

Striped goats are indeed ridiculous!

[Brian37]

There are no such things as super natural beings with super powers. The only place your god exists is in your head, just as made up as Apollo and Thor. The only difference between calling something a religion and calling it mythology, is that one is dead and the other is currently still popular. [3]


Nope, you are not going to lie and try to confuse "opinion" with fact. YOU have a position, you have no evidence for your position. If you had provable facts and not an unfounded position you wouldn't have to resort to falsely trying to bring the word "opinion" into this.

If you had facts there would be no need to use the word "opinion". But again, you defend the bible and others defend the Koran and others Buddha, and others the Vedas and they all have the same amount of facts to back them up. If any religion were a provable fact in a scientific reality we would have seen evidence of it 4 billion and 13.8 billion years ago. But funny that it only came around when humans popped on the scene and only started writing them down 10,000 years ago. Funny how we don't see cockroaches or trees invent religion and those are species far older than humans.

You are right that something is confused. You don't have proof of your statement above (bolded so you can't miss it). So, it is your opinion. It is as simple as that. 

A quick reminder of definitions:
Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.

So, to say that I have no evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. 
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is rationale.  The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

Holy giant wall of naked assertions Batman!

1. To you yea, because you like the claim, still not evidence, still a naked assertion.
2. Every religion has writing and or events they claim to be "miracles". You don't own the patent on that word.
3. No, you like the idea, and again so what, other people think their superstitions work for them.
4. Nope, theology is an apology nothing more. It is a sales pitch, nothing more.
5. Says you, so what, other people say that about other gods of other religions.
6. Again so what, there are tons of creator myths in our species history.
7. "fine tuning", yea like the fact humans can choke on food because we breath and eat with the same tube.
8. Again, see 5.
9. And Buddhists and Hindus and Jews and Muslims also claim their religions are the core of human morality. 

Not making any arguments here I have not seen from other religions.

[RoadRunner79]

Are you familiar with the fallacy of the appeal to novelty?  If you want to make a case for it, I am happy to listen!

"Appeal to novelty"? What the fuck does that mean? Scientific method is hardly a "novelty". If you think it is then why are you posting your bullshit arguments on a product of "novelty". I don't think products of science, like computers are a mere "novelty". Computers are pretty universal and used in every nation.

But ok, even if you want to claim I am not familiar with "fallacy of the appeal to novelty".

See if you can spot the pattern.

"The fallacy of the appeal to novelty" therefor Allah is the one true god.
"The fallacy of the appeal to novelty" therefor Yahweh is the one true god"
"The fallacy of the appeal to novelty" therefor Vishnu is the one true god"
"The fallacy of the appeal to novelty" therefor Buddha is the one true wisdom".


If your argument worked universally then anyone can use it to justify anything and all religions are true at the same time. 

Yes, science is far better than human concocted mythology. But hardly new. Advancements in science have speed up over the past century yes, and even the past couple of decades.

Just re-reading my post, I realized, that the two sentences where not intended to be connected to each other, but give the appearance that they are. Not related to your post, but just wanted to clarify, that the second sentence was more general.

From this, I don't think that you are familiar with the "appeal to novelty" fallacy. And I am starting to spot a pattern with you.... how about instead of erecting straw men, you just focus on your claims, or something I have actually said or believe. I like heaving a reasonable discussion, but it is amusing to watch you rant and throw a tantrum too.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Things like a global flood or striped goats are indeed ruled out by science.  Your pointing to unlikely events actually happening is a conflation between unlikely and implausible.  

I remember hearing a preacher say, with the respect Gen 6:1, that in the bible "all means all all the time," therefore the flood covered the entire earth. You're making the same mistake. You're trying to say that the authors of the bible intended to record such things as historical accounts using modern narrating conventions. Ancient Hebrew superlatives are often used for emphasis not as statements of fact. It's like me saying "This is the best burger ever!" We know that because there are multiple examples of superlative being used in just that way in other locations. The fact of the matter, is that the bible cannot contradict the findings of modern science because it's not making any scientific claims in the first place! Likewise the story of Jacob's ewes isn't a scientific claim about genetics or even and account of animal husbandry practices in the ancient world. To read it like that is just inappropriate.

[SteveII]

You are right that something is confused. You don't have proof of your statement above (bolded so you can't miss it). So, it is your opinion. It is as simple as that. 

A quick reminder of definitions:
Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute. These are all arrived at by considering evidence.

So, to say that I have no evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine, I don't care what your opinion is.

The evidence that I believe that supports my belief (another opinion) is below:

1. Person of Jesus is compelling.
2. The NT describes actual events including the miracles, life, death and resurrection of Jesus. 
3. God works in people's lives today--changing people on the inside as well as the occurrence of miracles.
4. The natural theology arguments:
a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Since you cannot 'prove' that any of these are falsely held beliefs, my conclusion (opinion) that God exists is rationale.  The amount of evidence meets my personal threshold for proof that God exists.

Holy giant wall of naked assertions Batman!

1. To you yea, because you like the claim, still not evidence, still a naked assertion.
2. Every religion has writing and or events they claim to be "miracles". You don't own the patent on that word.
3. No, you like the idea, and again so what, other people think their superstitions work for them.
4. Nope, theology is an apology nothing more. It is a sales pitch, nothing more.
5. Says you, so what, other people say that about other gods of other religions.
6. Again so what, there are tons of creator myths in our species history.
7. "fine tuning", yea like the fact humans can choke on food because we breath and eat with the same tube.
8. Again, see 5.
9. And Buddhists and Hindus and Jews and Muslims also claim their religions are the core of human morality. 

Not making any arguments here I have not seen from other religions.

I'm curious of two things about you: 1) how old are you and 2) why do you participate in discussions like this one?

[Crossless2.0]

Things like a global flood or striped goats are indeed ruled out by science.  Your pointing to unlikely events actually happening is a conflation between unlikely and implausible.  

I remember hearing a preacher say, with the respect Gen 6:1, that in the bible "all means all all the time," therefore the flood covered the entire earth. You're making the same mistake. You're trying to say that the authors of the bible intended to record such things as historical accounts using modern narrating conventions. Ancient Hebrew superlatives are often used for emphasis not as statements of fact. It's like me saying "This is the best burger ever!" We know that because there are multiple examples of superlative being used in just that way in other locations. The fact of the matter, is that the bible cannot contradict the findings of modern science because it's not making any scientific claims in the first place! Likewise the story of Jacob's ewes isn't a scientific claim about genetics or even and account of animal husbandry practices in the ancient world. To read it like that is just inappropriate.

The Bible doesn't make scientific claims, per se. However, it makes certain claims that can be evaluated through a scientific filter. Old-earth creationists -- of which I gather you are one -- don't stumble much over the Genesis creationist accounts, but YECs flatly contradict everything we now know about the age of the cosmos and our planet. At the least, you can agree that science provides a frame of reference in which certain approaches to reading the Bible are flatly ruled out, no?

[RoadRunner79]

Things like a global flood or striped goats are indeed ruled out by science.  Your pointing to unlikely events actually happening is a conflation between unlikely and implausible.  

I remember hearing a preacher say, with the respect Gen 6:1, that in the bible "all means all all the time," therefore the flood covered the entire earth. You're making the same mistake. You're trying to say that the authors of the bible intended to record such things as historical accounts using modern narrating conventions. Ancient Hebrew superlatives are used for emphasis not as statements of fact. It's like me saying "This is the best burger ever!" We know that because there are multiple examples of superlative being used in just that way in other locations.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that is a modern narrating convention.... As you gave as an example, it's quite common in this era, and in another language I might add.   "All the world" can have a couple of different contexts, depending on how it is used.  The principle of charity, says that you should use the one that makes the most sense.  Now I have a high view of the Scriptures and to a large extent I am a Biblical literalness (not saying that everything is meant to be literal), but I think there are those on both sides, who try to over analyze, and take the Bible other than as it was intended.