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

[Whateverist]

An argument for atheism? Hmmm…. I’ll go with divine hiddenness. When I was an atheist, I found the silence of God in response to earnest prayer troubling.

Wouldn't this really be more a reason for a person inclined to take the notion of god seriously to be angry with Him?  I wonder what percentage of atheists fall into that description.  And I assume that was the nature of your bout with atheism, no?  Technically I don't think someone who is mad at god is really an atheist.

[Cyberman]

That's just an angry theist. They still have an invisible man watching them masturbate.

[Fake Messiah]

When you think about it N-S might be up to something: like he says the linear reading of Bible is wrong, because when you read it from beginning to the end you get a lot of people butchering people to please god and you think only a retarded maniac could think this book actually speaks something moral and good. But when you read it backward you get a lot of people bringing dead people back to life and suddenly it is a very moral book.

Already addressed on my blog: https://keplersdream.wordpress.com/2013/...-its-epic/

So this is where N-S got his new "scholastic" approach to the Bible, by something you started as a joke. No doubt the whole Bible started when two Bedouins were sitting in the desert few thousand years ago telling jokes
Bedouin 1: Hey listen I just thought up a great joke, what do you say whole world was created by a human with supernatural, all-powerful powers in 6 days and then... get this, a mere human eats a fig from a wrong tree so the wizard punishes not only every human that ever lived but plants, animals, and the earth itself pay the price!

Bedouin 2: Ha! Ha! Ha! Stop it, you'll make me vomit all the camel milk. Hi! Hi! I mean imagine an all-powerful being not being able to come up with the same results without the evils he couldn't figure out a better plan!
I mean to act so stupid, like a parent that would beat a child nearly to death at her first mistake, then leaving all subsequent errors and crimes undisciplined!

Bedouin 1: Yeah I know, I better write it down, this will make a kill in Canaan.

[Pat Mustard]

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

Awww poor little Wooters can't deal with people showing his theology for the bullshit that it is. You going to put Brian on ignore for popping your delusions, like you did me?

[PETE_ROSE]

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.

Well said. I would be interested in looking at those further. Feel free to share them with me.

[Cyberman]

A far better and more revealing exercise would be to read the bible - particularly the NT - in the order in which it was written, the better to follow the way the stories grew and developed over time and iteration.

[Mister Agenda]

When I was a theist, it wasn't really argumentation that pushed me away from theism. First it was (apparently ill-advisedly) reading the Bible from front to back. Then I kept finding out that things my fellow Christians were claiming weren't actually true (if I still misunderstood evolution as badly as I did when I was a Christian, I still wouldn't believe it). But that only got me as far as 'not a Christian', not as far as 'not a theist'.

Learning about logic and arguments was an important step, but it wasn't so much that I noticed a good argument for atheism as I noticed all the arguments the theists were using were flawed and didn't actually establish the case they were trying to make. That surprised me. I surveyed arguments for God, trying to find one that stood up to scrutiny. I was left thinking that the only reason to not dismiss ideas of God in total with absolute certainty is that some versions are at least not impossible. I had gone from agnostic theist to 'agnostic agnostic'. It was only later that I was exposed to information about atheists and atheism (I had read The Selfish Gene back in 79, but it was just a book about biology to me and Dawkins hadn't yet become an open advocate for atheism). At that point, I thought the 'weak atheist' label applied to me, and over 20 years later, still do.

[PETE_ROSE]

A far better and more revealing exercise would be to read the bible - particularly the NT - in the order in which it was written, the better to follow the way the stories grew and developed over time and iteration.

Perhaps I misunderstand you. But the New Testsment books are not ordered from first written to last. For example weren't some of the Pauline epistles penned prior to the some of the gospels?

[Cyberman]

I think you did misunderstand. I know they're not ordered the way they were writtem; that was my point.

[PETE_ROSE]

I think you did misunderstand. I know they're not ordered the way they were writtem; that was my point.

Gotcha. Wasn't sure.