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

[Brian37]

Personally, people who read the canon in order from start to finish are ill-advised. That may leave you with a basic biblical timeline, which is a good thing, but also leads to much confusion. The texts have to be read both forwards and backwards to draw out all the foreshadowing and typology. My favorite technique is finding a common phrase, consulting a concordance, and then comparing how it is used in each instance. The texts open up in unexpected ways to reveal hidden themes and allusions threading their way through the narrative. These threads tie the stories together just as Jesus said, "If you believed Moses then you would believe me..." (John 5:46) I find that approach more helpful than the typical topical approaches most bible study groups use. Those seem more like proof-texting clubs. I'd be happy to share videos of some study groups that take that approach, albeit from a Swedenborgian perspective, for anyone who is interested.

Just another bullshit response.  "I read the bible, but still don't buy it."  "You're reading it in the wrong direction!"

"When I get to the bottom I go back to the top of the slide
Where I stop and I turn and I go for a ride
Till I get to the bottom and I see you again"


"Niaga ouy ees I dna mottob eht ot teg I llit
edir a rof og I dna nrut I dna pots I erehw
edils eht fo pot eht ot kcab og I mottob eht ot teg I nehw"

Backwards makes as much sense as forward. Gibberish both directions.

[RoadRunner79]

When I was a theist, the most compelling argument I ever heard for atheism was, "Read the bible fully."

Personally, people who read the canon in order from start to finish are ill-advised. That may leave you with a basic biblical timeline, which is a good thing, but also leads to much confusion. The texts have to be read both forwards and backwards to draw out all the foreshadowing and typology. My favorite technique is finding a common phrase, consulting a concordance, and then comparing how it is used in each instance. The texts open up in unexpected ways to reveal hidden themes and allusions threading their way through the narrative. These threads tie the stories together just as Jesus said, "If you believed Moses then you would believe me..." (John 5:46) I find that approach more helpful than the typical topical approaches most bible study groups use. Those seem more like proof-texting clubs. I'd be happy to share videos of some study groups that take that approach, albeit from a Swedenborgian perspective, for anyone who is interested.

I would disagree here somewhat.... I do think that reading straight through, has value, in providing perspective and context.  This helped me out a great deal, to understand the why throughout the story.  But I also do agree with a systematic approach, for doctrine; as well as  other tools such as you mentioned, comparing how words or phrases are used.  Also you can look at cultural context, as well as if there is commentary from that time or the orthodox view. 

I think that it takes a balanced approach, and I try not to focus too much on any particular tool (they each have their uses).  And while I do agree, that there are some hidden themes and allusions (which may not be obvious from a casual reading), I have also seen some wackos who seek for hidden themes and allusions a little too much.

[Little Rik]

The bad news is that you will keep on floating in this material universe until you will start use logic and start thinking that a creation must have a creator.

Actually, logic can't get me to start thinking that the Universe is a "creation" and that there must be a "creator".

The good news instead is that God can not possibly punish anyone even if the karma law is there as a way
to teach and sort out problems.
You just punish yourself by not following logic.
In any case at the end when the lesson will be learn everybody will become part and parcel of the ocean of cosmic bliss.
No hell exist except the mental hell that we create by not using logic.  

This wall of text is completely void of content at best and asinine at worst. However, I regard your positive notions as not being so deplorable.

Sorry Ma but your logic is a second hand logic or a failed logic.
First hand logic tell us that cause and effect are a reality as are a reality the law of action and reaction.
In nature there is nothing that pop up from nowhere.
Even the rabbits that the magician pop up from the magic hat come from somewhere.
This is logic Ma.  

[Whateverist]

The best reason for atheism is the refusal to take on faith unsupported claims which are farfetched and/or absurd on the face of it.  One does not argue their way to atheism, one merely refrains from embracing theism and other crazy sounding beliefs without good reason.

People have different opinions about what is far-fetched or absurd do they not? I find the Dawkins's notion that we are "biological robots in a meaningless universe" and Dennett/Churchland's assertions about consciousness being an illusion - both of those - absurd. I also find the notion that facts about nature can supply any kind of moral values far-fetched. And those are just the start of a whole host of conclusions that I see as ridiculous responses to the human condition. The idea of an intelligent self-sustaining ground of being seems far less implausible to me.

Apparently they/we do.  The difference I see is that the things you find far fetched are the assumption that there are natural causes for observed and/or inferred phenomena, even though we've had lots of experience historically with moving from a position of not or mis- understanding phenomena to seeing better and better how natural systems fit together.  The thing I find far fetched is the inference of an unnatural agent with powers surpassing anything ever observed based on no observation whatsoever - well, unless you count attributions to it to explain away our ignorance.  I'm just way more comfortable acknowledging our ignorance which is an ordinary and common phenomenon.

[Brian37]

People have different opinions about what is far-fetched or absurd do they not? I find the Dawkins's notion that we are "biological robots in a meaningless universe" and Dennett/Churchland's assertions about consciousness being an illusion - both of those - absurd. I also find the notion that facts about nature can supply any kind of moral values far-fetched. And those are just the start of a whole host of conclusions that I see as ridiculous responses to the human condition. The idea of an intelligent self-sustaining ground of being seems far less implausible to me.

Apparently they/we do.  The difference I see is that the things you find far fetched are the assumption that there are natural causes for observed and/or inferred phenomena, even though we've had lots of experience historically with moving from a position of not or mis- understanding phenomena to seeing better and better how natural systems fit together.  The thing I find far fetched is the inference of an unnatural agent with powers surpassing anything ever observed based on no observation whatsoever - well, unless you count attributions to it to explain away our ignorance.  I'm just way more comfortable acknowledging our ignorance which is an ordinary and common phenomenon.

To Neo...... Show me a direct quote of of Dawkins saying "we are biological robots in a meaningless universe"..... source that. Saying that the universe is ultimately meaningless is true, but that does not make humans robots who lack empathy for others, nor does it mean the time we have now as humans isn't important, it is. Saying that evolution is all life is and does not require a magic super hero to explain, does not mean atheists cant value art, empathy and emotions. It just means we don't explain those things with superstition or myth.

"Consciousness is an illusion" that one too, theists have a tendency to take what atheists say out of context. It is and it is not. It is a very real outcome of evolution, but our perceptions of reality are quite often flawed as a species. Even Einstein's theory of relativity and modern QM tell us that we are stuck in our own macro slice of space/time and if we could move to a different dimension, or different slice in the bread loaf of space/time, our point of view would be different. In that context our consciousness IS an illusion.  Just like  a passenger  jet 747 on the ground gives us the illusion that it is really big, but when it is 30,000 feet in the air and we are looking up at it from the ground, the reality becomes that the jet really is not that big when compared to other objects such as clouds, or the earth.

[Amarok]

we are biological robots

And even if Dawkins said it so what? He's not the atheist pope . Nor does this sentence make sense as robots are artificial constructs humans are not

---

meaningless universe

meaningless to whom? And even if assigned meaning exists why would you care?

---

Consciousness is an illusion

Portions of it most certainly are

---

nature can supply any kind of moral values far-fetched

Nature is the only state were morality matters or values exist

---

Oh and magic does not require a magician

[Neo-Scholastic]

To Neo...... Show me a direct quote of of Dawkins saying "we are biological robots in a meaningless universe"..... source that.

“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” ― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

Is that close enough for you? Maybe I shouldn't have put that phrase in quote marks but the meaning is the same. You're just arguing to argue.

"Consciousness is an illusion" that one too, theists have a tendency to take what atheists say out of context.

"Are zombies possible? They're not just possible, they're actual. We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious — not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines as epiphenomenalism." - Daniel Dennett, Consiousness Explained

I'd like to hear you put that one in some context that suggests it means something other that what it actually says.

[Brian37]

To Neo...... Show me a direct quote of of Dawkins saying "we are biological robots in a meaningless universe"..... source that.

“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.”  ― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

Is that close enough for you? Maybe I shouldn't have put that phrase in quote marks but the meaning is the same. You're just arguing to argue.

"Consciousness is an illusion" that one too, theists have a tendency to take what atheists say out of context.

"Are zombies possible? They're not just possible, they're actual. We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious — not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines as epiphenomenalism." - Daniel Dennett, Consiousness Explained

I'd like to hear you put that one in some context that suggests it means something other that what it actually says.

Ok and? Yep, still taking what they say out of context. Much in the same way far to many theists treat the word "theory" as a mere guess when in scientific language it is established fact. 

They are not saying we should be emotionless or lawless. You wanting to frame it that way is your baggage, not theirs. 

Key word you miss with the Dawkins quote is "astounding". He means that life is amazing with that sentence. 

The Dennett quote you skip the "not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines". I'd say " not the bullshit superstitions and horror movies". By "zombies" he is talking about how down to the single atom which by itself acts a certain way. He means we are literally living fractals. Our atoms build up to become life, but the atoms that make up carbon based life are not aware as single atoms individually of what they are doing. Atoms are not conscious as single atoms. When atoms form certain living organisms that can build up to consciousness, but DNA as a individual strand isn't an entire in tact brain, so that one strand of DNA is one among trillions in our body and as individual strands they are not conscious. It is only the collection of those individual atoms and strands of DNA that lead to consciousness. 

Again, you've had years of indoctrination of people selling you superstition so that is why you don't understand what they mean.

If you do not know, you should know that science proves that there is not one single atom in you now that was in you at the time of your conception, much less at your  birth. Our bodies constantly take in atoms and expel atoms. That is the context you should be taking both quotes in, and that is what they think is amazing about life, that is what they mean by those quotes.

[Fake Messiah]

When I was a theist, the most compelling argument I ever heard for atheism was, "Read the bible fully."

Personally, people who read the canon in order from start to finish are ill-advised. That may leave you with a basic biblical timeline, which is a good thing, but also leads to much confusion. The texts have to be read both forwards and backwards to draw out all the foreshadowing and typology. My favorite technique is finding a common phrase, consulting a concordance, and then comparing how it is used in each instance. The texts open up in unexpected ways to reveal hidden themes and allusions threading their way through the narrative. These threads tie the stories together just as Jesus said, "If you believed Moses then you would believe me..." (John 5:46) I find that approach more helpful than the typical topical approaches most bible study groups use. Those seem more like proof-texting clubs. I'd be happy to share videos of some study groups that take that approach, albeit from a Swedenborgian perspective, for anyone who is interested.

Oh yeah so what did you figure out about the story when Abraham is supposed to kill his son? What special meaning and hidden messages did you find in that? Because from the viewpoint of modern morality, this disgraceful story, is an example of child abuse, something that Isaac could never recover from such psychological trauma.
Or what about when Jephthah actually killed his daughter to please JHVH? I mean how do you have to read the Bible to make sense of that story? Maybe hanging upside down so that blood fills your brain?

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Are zombies possible? They're not just possible, they're actual. We're all zombies. Nobody is conscious — not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines as epiphenomenalism." - Daniel Dennett, Consiousness Explained

The Dennett quote you skip the "not in the systematically mysterious way that supports such doctrines". I'd say " not the bullshit superstitions and horror movies". By "zombies" he is talking about how down to the single atom which by itself acts a certain way.

You better stop now before you beclown yourself even more than you already have. Anyone can see that I did NOT skip the part about about epiphenomenalism in my quote. Please go on though...display your complete ignorance for all the world to see. The zombies in question have nothing to do with atoms behaving a certain way. He is talking about P-zombies, people that behave in every way like everyone else but do not experience qualia. It is a very very famous thought problem by David Chalmers and the fact that you don't know about it just shows that you haven't a clue.