Atheism

[Simon Moon]

Sure it carries weight. It demands examination in a different way a religion of 10 people would. Regarding Hinduism, the next step would be to ask questions like:

1. Is Hinduism theology internally consistent?
2. Does it have a coherent understanding of reality?
3. Is there some sort of body of natural theology that support the tenent of the faith?
4. Are the facts of Krishna's life believable (as a god)? (demons, killing, war, wives, children, died of an arrow wound)

And then you go from there...

1. No, it is not internally consistent. But NO religion is. Even yours.

2. No religion does. Even yours. The Vedas get much closer to the age of the universe than Christianity does.

3. By 'natural theology' do you mean the philosophical arguments for god? Like the cosmological, teleological, ontological arguments? If so, they are all flawed, so they don't support the existence of any god.

4. I don't care. But neither are the 'facts' of Jesus' life believable. Virgin birth, walking on water, demon entering a herd of pigs, etc. None of this is believable. And if you believe that ancient texts, written decades or more after the alleged events, written by anonymous authors, is good evidence to support such claims, then you just don't understand what constitutes good standards of evidence.

Christianity does not pass the same level of scrutiny you are describing for Hinduism.

Imagine you have to convince an alien race that has no religion, and has no knowledge of humanity's many god beliefs, that your's is the correct one. Do you really believe you can convince them with your flawed 'cumulative case'?