@Esquilax
The phrase "assumption there is no god" was the wrong word choice. Perspective was what I was going for. I do have to be careful in the future to distinguish between those (even in this forum) who clearly have no grasp whatsoever what Christians believe and those that are more aware of the specifics.
You can (and do) present good arguments for atheism vs Christianity. This is accomplished by working backwards using a "no assumptions" framework from NT reliability, science, Genesis, etc.and eventually arriving at "no need for God". You are not proving NT wrong, that no miracle ever happened, evil=no God, life evolved, or origins of the universe--just casting doubt by proposing alternative theories. All of which is very reasonable.
My point is that a Christian is rarely going to be shaken on the point of the existence of God so that as you present good reasons to question the Christian worldview, once you get to the "therefore no need for God" they are unwilling to follow across that line. They then look back at all your arguments and fills in "but if God exists then..." in front of every major issue and while their might be some modifications to the belief system (i.e. Gen 1-3), the Christian worldview is rebuilt a little stronger than before.
The OP asks how to stump the Christians. You certainly can stump a good many on a variety of topics if they have not studied them or if they have a poor understanding of the actual teaching (i.e. hurricanes for the wicked). That does not mean that these theological issues have not been discussed for two millennium and there is no answer.
The phrase "assumption there is no god" was the wrong word choice. Perspective was what I was going for. I do have to be careful in the future to distinguish between those (even in this forum) who clearly have no grasp whatsoever what Christians believe and those that are more aware of the specifics.
You can (and do) present good arguments for atheism vs Christianity. This is accomplished by working backwards using a "no assumptions" framework from NT reliability, science, Genesis, etc.and eventually arriving at "no need for God". You are not proving NT wrong, that no miracle ever happened, evil=no God, life evolved, or origins of the universe--just casting doubt by proposing alternative theories. All of which is very reasonable.
My point is that a Christian is rarely going to be shaken on the point of the existence of God so that as you present good reasons to question the Christian worldview, once you get to the "therefore no need for God" they are unwilling to follow across that line. They then look back at all your arguments and fills in "but if God exists then..." in front of every major issue and while their might be some modifications to the belief system (i.e. Gen 1-3), the Christian worldview is rebuilt a little stronger than before.
The OP asks how to stump the Christians. You certainly can stump a good many on a variety of topics if they have not studied them or if they have a poor understanding of the actual teaching (i.e. hurricanes for the wicked). That does not mean that these theological issues have not been discussed for two millennium and there is no answer.
