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

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Predisposal to think something isn't evidence of that something, but it's a pretty good reason to be suspicious of any claim that people are pre-disposed to accept on insufficient evidence.

So, if Islam had more adult conversions, you would switch, because that's such a good reason to think a religion is correct? If not, what does the rate of adult conversion have to do with the price of tea in China?

---

But how else can we ever judge a claim except by the conceptions we've acquired up to that point?  For a claim that by definition for a miracle is impossible by all prior understandings, it is very hard to say in advance what the standard should be.  All I'm sure of is that connecting the dots for the natural aspects of the claim will in no way bridge the way to vouchsafing the part which is alleged to be 'miraculous'.

Human beings are not born naturalists; but rather, are instinctively aware of and attuned to the ineffable, sublime, and uncanny. My challenge is to your assumption that  "a miracle is impossible by all prior understandings." I submit to you that exclusion of the miraculous is the result of cultivating a mindset against it.

That is true. The mindset of which you're thinking is reasonable skepticism.

[SteveII]

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?

I've concluded that you can't take miracle claims at face value because no miracle that reasonably could have been confirmed if it actually was real has been confirmed. What's your rational, logical reason for thinking that the proper epistemological stance is to accept such claims, especially when too ancient to even be within the realm of possible confirmation, as real?

If I could give my two cents, I wrote this in response to a post some time ago (so forgive the references to a conversation you don't see): 

When discussing Jesus' miracles, the context, that strengthen the claim, might include:

1. Timing (cueing as you put it)
2. Illustrating a particular point. Example Mat 9 Jesus told a man his sins were forgiven. When the religious leaders grumbled that this was blasphemy, he asked what was easier to say that your sins are forgiven or to tell him to get up an walk.
3. Reinforce teachings with some authority. Example feeding 5000, Matt 9:35
4. So that people might believe (specifically stated). Example Lazarus (John 11)
5. Reward for faith.
6. Theologically significant. example virgin birth, baptism, tearing of the veil in the temple, resurrection.

Now, you ask about non-Jesus miracles. I don't think the above list applies to miracle today so we need to switch to why God might intervene with a miracle. I think that God, with his foreknowledge of what we will freely do, has already factored in our prayers in deciding what the best intervention (if any) is for us and the terribly complex "butterfly effect" any intervention might bring to the rest of the future and will do what is best in the long run. In this perspective, timing or "cueing" is meaningless because the goal has nothing to do with the goal. In fact, invoking it should be a red flag.

To further explain that thought, I think the Bible teaches us to ask in faith that God can grant our petition but always with the attitude of "not my will, but your will be done" (Lord's Prayer). Even with the right attitude, God does not promise to answer our every request. The only promise given is illustrated in Romans 8:28 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God..."

You are entirely correct that these factors reduce my assessment of the prospect of it being a miracle. That is why I said that today, miracle claims are overstated and I don't use them to argue the existance of miracles specifically or God in general. But in general, I have reason to believe they happen and should be asked for with the right attitude understanding that the answer could very well be "no".

---

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.

Predisposal to think something isn't evidence of that something, but it's a pretty good reason to be suspicious of any claim that people are pre-disposed to accept on insufficient evidence.

So, if Islam had more adult conversions, you would switch, because that's such a good reason to think a religion is correct? If not, what does the rate of adult conversion have to do with the price of tea in China?

"Insufficient evidence" is a subjective assessment. My point was that millions of people per year do not make the same assessment.
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.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

A good measure of how many people accept a claim is not a good measure of whether the claim is true, if it were, ad populum would not be a fallacy. It is clear that my care is only whether the claim is actually true or not, and in that respect I'm fairly representative of the skeptical side of this forum, I think. So what is the relevancy of a good measure of how the population overall subjectively assesses the evidence? Once upon a time the population subjectively assessed the evidence for a flat earth as convincing, but you want me to buy Christianity's capture of a third of the population as evidence that their supernatural claims are correct?

As far as a different theory that would explain the effect, how about their missionary work in impoverished countries already rife with superstition is paying off? All they have to do is persuade the locals to accept their supernatural beliefs in addition to or instead of the ones they already have. It's not like Christianity is converting millions of scientists every day. That would certainly be intriguing. Converting people who will attend church for food and already believe witches are responsible for bad weather, on the other hand, is not that impressive. The Muslims are right behind you on that count.

[Brian37]

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.

A good measure of how many people accept a claim is not a good measure of whether the claim is true, if it were, ad populum would not be a fallacy. It is clear that my care is only whether the claim is actually true or not, and in that respect I'm fairly representative of the skeptical side of this forum, I think. So what is the relevancy of a good measure of how the population overall subjectively assesses the evidence? Once upon a time the population subjectively assessed the evidence for a flat earth as convincing, but you want me to buy Christianity's capture of a third of the population as evidence that their supernatural claims are correct?

As far as a different theory that would explain the effect, how about their missionary work in impoverished countries already rife with superstition is paying off. All they have to do is persuade the locals to accept their supernatural beliefs in addition or instead of the ones they already have. It's not like Christianity is converting millions of scientists every day. That would certainly be intriguing. Converting people who will attend church for food and already believe witches are responsible for bad weather, on the other hand, is not that impressive. The Muslims are right behind you on that count.

Getting stuck on one religion misses the point. The arguments for any religion are all the same.

1. My club is  correct.
2. My club has had a long history.
3. My club produces moral people.
4. My club's holy people have insight on the nature of reality.
5. Science doesn't debunk religion.
6. My club has produced scientists.

When religious people cant prove the necessity of their club/holy writing/holy person, they will resort to either attacking science or trying to claim science points to their religion. But that is not just Christians who do that, but every religion in the world, including Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists. 

The reality is that human morality is evolutionary, not coming from books or holy people. The reality is also that our species evolved to be curious, so when any religion tries to claim ownership of science they are simply falsely attributing our natural curiosity as coming from a spirit/divine/god world.

[SteveII]

Getting stuck on one religion misses the point. The arguments for any religion are all the same.

1. My club is  correct.
2. My club has had a long history.
3. My club produces moral people.
4. My club's holy people have insight on the nature of reality.
5. Science doesn't debunk religion.
6. My club has produced scientists.

When religious people cant prove the necessity of their club/holy writing/holy person, they will resort to either attacking science or trying to claim science points to their religion. But that is not just Christians who do that, but every religion in the world, including Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists. [1]

The reality is that human morality is evolutionary, not coming from books or holy people. [2] The reality is also that our species evolved to be curious, so when any religion tries to claim ownership of science they are simply falsely attributing our natural curiosity as coming from a spirit/divine/god world. [1]

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.

[Mister Agenda]

Methodological naturalism isn't a presupposition, and that's the kind of naturalism you'll find around here. Just give us one unnatural thing, just one, that stands up to scrutiny; and we'll change our minds.

[Brian37]

Getting stuck on one religion misses the point. The arguments for any religion are all the same.

1. My club is  correct.
2. My club has had a long history.
3. My club produces moral people.
4. My club's holy people have insight on the nature of reality.
5. Science doesn't debunk religion.
6. My club has produced scientists.

When religious people cant prove the necessity of their club/holy writing/holy person, they will resort to either attacking science or trying to claim science points to their religion. But that is not just Christians who do that, but every religion in the world, including Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists. [1]

The reality is that human morality is evolutionary, not coming from books or holy people. [2] The reality is also that our species evolved to be curious, so when any religion tries to claim ownership of science they are simply falsely attributing our natural curiosity as coming from a spirit/divine/god world. [1]

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.

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.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Methodological naturalism isn't a presupposition, and that's the kind of naturalism you'll find around here. Just give us one unnatural thing, just one, that stands up to scrutiny; and we'll change our minds.

We did. You didn't.

[Brian37]

Methodological naturalism isn't a presupposition, and that's the kind of naturalism you'll find around here. Just give us one unnatural thing, just one, that stands up to scrutiny; and we'll change our minds.

We did. You didn't.

"God did it" 
"Allah did it"
"Yahweh did it"
"Buddha did it"
"Vishnu did it"
"Apollo did it"

All the same shit. Sorry that bothers theists, but that is their baggage not ours.

[Catholic_Lady]

Is there an argument for atheism?

There shouldn't be, imho. If atheism is simply "I don't know 100% if God/s exists, but there is not enough proof to convince me personally that He does, so I will continue to live and think as though He doesn't unless more evidence is presented", I don't know how that can be any sort of argument for the non existence of anything.