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

[Brian37]

Ready, fire, aim...You might be surprised to know that your repeated and repeated and repeated comparisons between Allah, Yahweh, Buddha, and Brahama are pointless. They refer to special revelations claimed by each religion. The fine-tuning argument (among others) refers to the god of classical theism in which ALL agree based on general revelation. But if you want to keep acting like a child, copying and pasting your ignorant rant, then by all means go ahead. No one is stopping you from making a fool of yourself.

Not pointless. If you all think you all got it right scientific method could quite easily settle that dispute. 

"they refer to special revelation" ok, therefore Allah
"they refer to special revelation", ok. therefore Yahweh
"they refer to special revelation", ok, therefore Buddha
"they refer to special revelation", ok, therefore Brahama 

No, sorry, they all refer to special pleading, not revelation of any kind, not special or general, no such thing as a divine world communicating to anyone revealing anything to anyone.

Now that you cant prove your pet flavor deity, you are trying to cop out to 'that is just god speaking different languages",

So? Hardly efficient if one is to argue a perfect being who wants us all on the same page.

There is nobody being talked to by a divine world of any language. There are merely humans that think they are doing that. It is pleading based on confirmation bias, not data confirmed with the neutral method of scientific method.

[RoadRunner79]

Edit:  Changed my mind... agree, he's just trolling.

[Brian37]

Edit:  Changed my mind... agree, he's just trolling.

Repeating is not trolling. Trolling is what religion has done for 10,000 years. It takes the skeptic over time to tell people and keep repeating to people "that is not true" over time for humans to ditch bad claims. 

Now again, and yes I will keep repeating it. If any one religion got it right it would be very easy to prove in a neutral lab with neutral method and independent peer review. 

You are not proving anything, you are attempting, like every religion does, trying to retrofit science after the bad claim was made. 

There is no god/spirit/deity/GOD out there handing us information. No, that is not comforting to most humans. But your apology here doesn't work, just like you don't convert to another religion or god claim. I merely reject one more religion and one more god claim than you do.

You are not arguing science, you are using science and bastardizing neutral method to avoid being honest and saying you have nothing but an apology.

---

Go find the entire COSMOS series all 13 episodes hosted by Neil Degrassee Tyson, could give you some insight as to how time after time the gatekeepers got it wrong. It could give you insight as to what I am doing and why I am doing it.

[RoadRunner79]

Edit:  Changed my mind... agree, he's just trolling.

Repeating is not trolling. Trolling is what religion has done for 10,000 years. It takes the skeptic over time to tell people and keep repeating to people "that is not true" over time for humans to ditch bad claims. 

Now again, and yes I will keep repeating it. If any one religion got it right it would be very easy to prove in a neutral lab with neutral method and independent peer review. 

You are not proving anything, you are attempting, like every religion does, trying to retrofit science after the bad claim was made. 

There is no god/spirit/deity/GOD out there handing us information. No, that is not comforting to most humans. But your apology here doesn't work, just like you don't convert to another religion or god claim. I merely reject one more religion and one more god claim than you do.

You are not arguing science, you are using science and bastardizing neutral method to avoid being honest and saying you have nothing but an apology.

---

Go find the entire COSMOS series all 13 episodes hosted by Neil Degrassee Tyson, could give you some insight as to how time after time the gatekeepers got it wrong.  It could give you insight as to what I am doing and why I am doing it.

Perhaps you should try to actually address what people are saying.  Or we can look at what you are claiming if you prefer.   I think it is a bunch of bad logic and incorrect thinking.... but we can examine it more closely.

[Brian37]

Repeating is not trolling. Trolling is what religion has done for 10,000 years. It takes the skeptic over time to tell people and keep repeating to people "that is not true" over time for humans to ditch bad claims. 

Now again, and yes I will keep repeating it. If any one religion got it right it would be very easy to prove in a neutral lab with neutral method and independent peer review. 

You are not proving anything, you are attempting, like every religion does, trying to retrofit science after the bad claim was made. 

There is no god/spirit/deity/GOD out there handing us information. No, that is not comforting to most humans. But your apology here doesn't work, just like you don't convert to another religion or god claim. I merely reject one more religion and one more god claim than you do.

You are not arguing science, you are using science and bastardizing neutral method to avoid being honest and saying you have nothing but an apology.

---

Go find the entire COSMOS series all 13 episodes hosted by Neil Degrassee Tyson, could give you some insight as to how time after time the gatekeepers got it wrong.  It could give you insight as to what I am doing and why I am doing it.

Perhaps you should try to actually address what people are saying.  Or we can look at what you are claiming if you prefer.   I think it is a bunch of bad logic and incorrect thinking.... but we can examine it more closely.

Why? Ochams razor does not need convoluted arguments.

Your choices are.

1. There really is a divine/spirit/god world.

Or.

2. Humans make them up.

Out of those choices which seems to be more likely? Is it likely Apollo is real or made up? Is it likely that Thor is real or made up? Would using fine tuning convince you of those gods? No? Why not? If it works for you and is an unbias tactic then it should work for everyone who wants to use it including any other religion.

Now, think about all the dead mythologies and other god claims and religions you don't buy. Why is it you reject all others besides yours? If using science to argue for another religion doesn't convince you to convert to another religion, why should I give you any special treatment?

If others here want to wade through your bad tactic sentence by sentence, they are more than welcome to. I am simply cutting to the chase, and trying to jar you out of your fantasy at a quicker pace.

[SteveII]

Regarding the probability of the initial constants, the universes initial conditions, and the laws of physics, and the objection that we don't know what the probability is:

There is a concept known as Epistemic Probability (aka inductive probability). Ian Hacking wrote 

On the one side it [the conception of probability] is statistical, concerning itself with stochastic laws or chance processes. On the other side, it is epistemological , dedicated to assessing reasonable degrees of belied in propositions quite devoid of statistical background. (Hacking, I. (1975) The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas about Probability. Cambridge University Press. 

A good example of this is how evolutionists say the thesis of Common Ancestry is probably true. They are not talking about statistical data. They are talking about conclusion of pieces of evidence.

[Brian37]

Regarding the probability of the initial constants, the universes initial conditions, and the laws of physics, and the objection that we don't know what the probability is:

There is a concept known as Epistemic Probability (aka inductive probability). Ian Hacking wrote 

On the one side it [the conception of probability] is statistical, concerning itself with stochastic laws or chance processes. On the other side, it is epistemological , dedicated to assessing reasonable degrees of belied in propositions quite devoid of statistical background. (Hacking, I. (1975) The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas about Probability. Cambridge University Press. 

A good example of this is how evolutionists say the thesis of Common Ancestry is probably true. They are not talking about statistical data. They are talking about conclusion of pieces of evidence.

There is no such thing as "evolutionist", that is your made up bullshit word to slur those who know it is true. There is simply evolution and those who accept it as fact. It is not a religion, you peddle a religion, not the scientists who know it is fact. Calling someone an "evolutionist" is a stupid as calling someone a "gravityist" or "computerist". Facts are not opinions you sell like a fictional movie or favorite soap opera or favorite reality tv show for. Facts are universal regardless of personal bias.

Those who know and accept evolution as FACT don't have to rely on a sales pitch, scientific history has proven it to be FACT and is backed up by DNA.  There you go trying to claim when scientists use "Common Ancestry" making the same stupid argument people do with the word "theory". When scientists use the term "Common Ancestry" it is not the layperson meaning you want it to mean in "the first two humans", that is not what evolution claims.

There were first conditions that lead to the countless first strands of DNA when evolution began. Much like there is no first raindrop in a storm, but building conditions that lead a storm to drop multiple rain drops at the same time. There were firsts ancestors, not a first couple. Our separation in looks from our primate cousins, was not because of one sudden change from on family, but changes in countless splits of multiple groups over long periods of many families.

[masterofpuppets]

The multiverse doesn't have to be finely tuned because it can be thought of as a kind of "foam" in which different "bubble" universes come to exist with their own physical constants. As aforementioned the multiverse was hypothesised based on our current understanding of physics, so it is at least somewhat viable in comparison to the idea that an intelligent designer did it.

As for the claim that if the physical constants were slightly different then our universe couldn't evolve to have structure, I agree with that completely, but it doesn't explain anything because it only applies to OUR universe. The fact that the physical constants are the way they are is a consequence of the fundamental nature of our universe, not the other way round, so by definition they can't be different. Constants don't give rise to universes, they are a property of universes. The nature of other universes could be so vastly different that they may have different constants, or they might not even have constants. The correct question to be asking is "how likely is it for a universe with structure and significant duration to come to exist" and sadly we just don't know the answer to this question.

The fine tuning problem also cannot explain why the universe appears to be overly tuned in some aspects. For example, the entropy at the instant of the Big Bang is many orders of magnitude lower than what it needs to be for the Stelliferous Era of the universe to last up until now. I would appreciate if any theist here could explain why God would need to fine-tune the Universe to an unnecessary extent.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Thank you for your reply SteveII.  In question three, I actually meant to say trillions of universes and not galaxies, so I apologize for my poorly communicated question. Thanks for your clarification.

Amending your sentence to: " Also, if fine-tuning is uncertain on a universal scale, then would it be premature and somewhat short-sighted to apply this way of thinking to trillions of universes? [3]

[1] Fine-tuning is not uncertain. It is the case that our universe has a very precise set of values that if they were different, the universe would not exist (in any functional sense). Not only that, the ratios between the constants have to be precise. 

[2]All but a few of the trillions of universes would not be a place with any potential for complex structure, let alone life. Unless of course you engage in metaphysical speculation that the multiverse somehow it tuned to turn out pre-tuned universes--which just begs the question why is the multiverse fine-tuned.

Regarding [1],  if the precise set of values were different, then is it more accurate to say that the universe would not exist as humanity currently understands it? Also, does fine-tuning necessarily imply causal intelligence/agency? Is it possible that universes can fine-tune themselves?

Regarding [2], is it possible that there could be trillions of universes with complex structures and forms of life that are completely beyond humanity's understanding of complex structures and forms of life? 

Thank you for your reply, SteveII

[Katia81]

no agument. you re free to worship and go to church often if you want. PRIVATELY. Don't come knocking on a door