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

[Harry Nevis]

I'm indifferent to the historicity of a non-miracle-working Jesus, I don't have a bet placed.

But what's called 'evidence' for the miracle-working man seems to not add up to more than 'lots of people believed he was real and really worked miracles, so he was real and really worked miracles'.

Sounds like you've already decided that miracles cannot happen so you edit out those parts. Isn't that kind of like the file-drawer effect?

Since a no miracle has ever been shown to be an actual miracle, I think that's appropriate.

---

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.

By what criteria do you decide which parts of the narrative to accept and which to reject? Is there any objective standard for what makes something extraordinary? A peasant girl named Joan leading the French army to victory. That sounds extraordinary too.

---

*Ninja kudos to Mr Agenda.  Hadn't read beyond the post I quoted in my last post before I echoed your take.

---

I assume we'd both expect a high degree of vetting to accept such claims.  We're not just talking about whether or not somebody did something we all understand how to do ourselves.  It is hard to imagine how one would begin to show conclusively that so-and-so accomplished a 'miracle' by completely non-natural means.

So people ask for evidence of a miracle, I present presumably historical materials attesting to a miracle, and they will not accept it because it describes a miracle. Sounds like special pleading and the original request was disingenuous.

No, it sounds like you have too broad of a definition (and a low bar) for evidence.

---

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.

---

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.

Although I question that "fact", the most popular is the right one?  How this has anything to do with the veracity of the bible or for the support of biblical claims is beyond me.