RE: Theists: What is the most compelling argument you have heard for Atheism?
March 21, 2017 at 12:44 pm
(This post was last modified: March 21, 2017 at 12:51 pm by SteveII.)
(March 21, 2017 at 11:06 am)Brian37 Wrote:(March 21, 2017 at 10:54 am)SteveII Wrote: 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.
(March 21, 2017 at 12:22 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(March 21, 2017 at 9:14 am)SteveII Wrote: 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?
