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

[SteveII]

1. One significant thing you seem to be overlooking is that without Jesus, there are no Christians. There is ample evidence of Christians and their beliefs outside the NT:
   A. EVIDENCE: There were churches in many major cities stretching from Palestine to Rome before Paul started to write his letters to them around 50ad. Not only were there churches, but they believed in the major events outlined in the gospels prior to the gospels and Paul's letters. 
   B. EVIDENCE: Tacitus referred to the large community of Christians in Rome regarding the events of 64AD
   C. EVIDENCE: Thallus discussed the crucifixion of Jesus around 52AD. His work is lost but was referenced by Julius Africanus in 221AD.
   D. EVIDENCE: Pliny the Younger asked Emperor Trajan in 112 on how to deal with the Christians. 
   E. EVIDENCE: Despite your attempt to exclude, Josephus was a historian writing mainly about the political struggle of the Jews with Rome for which Jesus was not an important figure (yet). Since Jesus was not of interest to Josephus' overall goal, his mention is important in confirming he existed. 
   F. EVIDENCE: Later the Talmud calls Jesus a sorcerer and that his power comes from evil spirits--which 1) recognizes Jesus exists and 2) does not deny the miracles--only their source

You may not like the evidence, but there is large amounts of evidence that points to the fact that Jesus not only walked the earth, but people genuinely believed he was the Son of God that came to make possible a relationship with God. 

2. The Christian community had decided long before 329 what books were to be regarded as authority. The way you summarize it is intentional because you think it strengthens your argument. However, it ignores actual facts.

3. The Jews would disagree. Ask them--they wrote it. 

4. Your complaint seems to be with people. 
 
5. Nope. It would be abhorrent to a Jew to propose (let alone find followers for) a new religion that deifies someone in order to play some long-game where any goals would not be achieved for generations. Your conspiracy theory is nonsense. 

6. Talk about no evidence. 

7. You cannot get around the fact that there is ample evidence that people believed the claims of Jesus immediately following his death--even prior to them being written down in the Gospels. You need to come up with a theory that accounts for all the evidence that is more plausible than what it appears to be. You have not. 

8. Your objection to the whole story seems to be that miracles do not happen. Well, if you object to evidence that miracles happen by saying we can't accept that because miracles don't happen, you are just arguing in a circle.

Sure, you can document an actual flesh and blood individual.  Maybe there was a rabbi named Jesus who is credited with starting the xtian cult.  You could document that much, though I don't know and don't care how well that has been done.  What you can't do is document the supernatural, wooey claims made for that individual whether actual or not.  A documented natural human being doesn't get you to god or any of those extraordinary claims.

So, in that case you need a theory that fits all the evidence and explains why people believed falsely that Jesus was God. When I say 'believed', I mean eyewitnesses believed thoroughly with all their heart. If you don't have such an evidenced-based theory, it seems then you are claiming that because there is no supernatural, then the NT can't be evidence of the supernatural--which is arguing in a circle.

---

I can accept the idea that people require different degrees of proof. In my own case, no single item is conclusive or even particularly persuasive. It is the cumulative case, that I feel warrants belief. At the same time, it puts the lie to the idea that "no" evidence has been provided; but rather, just not enough to suit people who are willing to raise the bar if the conclusion doesn't match their preconceptions about how the world should work.

A bunch of bad evidence =/= persuasive evidence.

And you are correct, the statement that there is "no evidence" is false. Only bad or insufficient evidence.

It is not that we are raising the bar. It is that you are lowering yours. You would not accept the same level of evidence for other religions than yours.

I don't think is a matter of lowering the bar. I think if most people are pre-disposed to think that the supernatural exists, then the Christian version is the best evidenced religion by far. This assessment is supported by the fact that Christianity grows by many millions of adult conversions across the world each year whereas other religions do not.