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

[Brian37]

1. If you are talking about Christianity, you are painting with too broad a brush to make a point. Christianity does not attack science. Science has nothing to say about whether Christianity is true or not.

You know, Steve, I agree that many atheists have an unsophisticated grasp of Christian doctrine and imagine non-existent conflicts with natural science. At the same time, we must admit that embittered atheists like Brian are the "equal and opposite" reaction to some Christians who focus on side-issues that have nothing to do with the Cross.  Perhaps that is what you meant by "painting with a broad brush." Really, I have no quarrel even with YEC. I can grant that a literal interpretation of Genesis chapters 1-3 is possible, since most anything is possible, although I consider YEC wildly implausible. Nevertheless, as Christians we do need to clean-up our own house. Maybe then atheists like Brian would not be distracted from the saving grace available to him by all the red herrings about incompatibility with science and comparisons with other religions.

Quantum Physics is sophisticated. Old myths written by scientifically ignorant humans isn't. I can find complex story lines in Shakespeare plays, Plato's plays, even Harry Potter and Star Wars, complex fiction is still fiction. Quantum physics isn't fiction.

"Embittered"? Yep childishly attempt to paint the skeptic as an emotional reactionary. Yea ok, you act like a child when someone tells you the truth that Santa is really your parents. 

You not wanting to accept that humans didn't know any better back then is your baggage, not mine. 

Religion teaches humans to view the world through a kaleidoscope and still insist it is a telescope. Science teaches you to accept the telescope is the only real tool you need. Scientific method does not say we are or should be emotionless robots. Nor does calling bullshit bullshit make one bitter. It merely makes one blunt.

If you came up to me and repeatedly claimed "The New England Patriots beat the Chicago Cubs in the Stanley Cup" what would you have me say? That would not be a true statement. I may even like you outside that claim, but the claim itself would be bullshit. 

It is not my fault someone successfully sold you an old book of myth. No such thing as a magic baby with super powers and humans do not survive rigor mortis. Just like you already accept that Thor does not cause lightening. Instead of wrongfully getting angry at the messenger, how about you consider you got it wrong?





"

[SteveII]

I am not interested in arguing about other religions. I asked specifically about Christianity. 

1. If you are talking about Christianity, you are painting with too broad a brush to make a point. Christianity does not attack science. Science has nothing to say about whether Christianity is true or not. If you think it does, you are wrong somewhere in your understand or logic. 
2.  Untestable, unfalsifiable theories. 
3. You couldn't possibly know that and your opinion doesn't much matter to me.

Of course you are not interested in arguing about other religions because magically you picked the correct one. So what, get in line take a number. 

Science most certainly DOES have something to say about the claims of Christianity. No such thing as a magic baby born without a second set of DNA. Humans also do not survive the death myth as the bible would imply. Without those two most important stories the bible claims about the Jesus character, you have nothing. [1]

But again, funny how you rightfully reject the claims of other religions but refuse to aim that same logic at your own book. [2]

Nope sorry, I cannot take a book seriously that makes claims about men magically popping out of dirt, women magically popping out of a man's rib. A book that treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light, when science proves that sunlight bounces off the moon. I cannot take a book seriously that makes claims about talking snakes, talking bushes and talking donkeys. The flood never happened, but if we assume it did, it is an immoral act of genocide, and the buyers of that tripe would be still stuck with a limited gene pool in the Noah Family at the end of it. [3]

Of course you aren't interested in debating other religions, don't feel bad, most humans aren't either because everyone thinks they got it right. Tell me is Thor a real god because we observe lightening? [4]

1. No, it really doesn't. Christians claim these events were supernatural (not-natural) in cause. Since the supernatural cannot be examined by science (by definition), it cannot comment on the cause. It can only describe the effect. 
2. I believe my religion is more evidenced, more plausible, and better describes the real world than others. It does not matter (nor concern me) that you cannot distinguish between them. 
3. Very original and sophisticated arguments. My faith has been shaken.
4. Yes. That is the reasoning I use and it can easily be applied to Thor. Good job at zeroing in on the issues.

[Brian37]

Of course you are not interested in arguing about other religions because magically you picked the correct one. So what, get in line take a number. 

Science most certainly DOES have something to say about the claims of Christianity. No such thing as a magic baby born without a second set of DNA. Humans also do not survive the death myth as the bible would imply. Without those two most important stories the bible claims about the Jesus character, you have nothing. [1]

But again, funny how you rightfully reject the claims of other religions but refuse to aim that same logic at your own book. [2]

Nope sorry, I cannot take a book seriously that makes claims about men magically popping out of dirt, women magically popping out of a man's rib. A book that treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light, when science proves that sunlight bounces off the moon. I cannot take a book seriously that makes claims about talking snakes, talking bushes and talking donkeys. The flood never happened, but if we assume it did, it is an immoral act of genocide, and the buyers of that tripe would be still stuck with a limited gene pool in the Noah Family at the end of it. [3]

Of course you aren't interested in debating other religions, don't feel bad, most humans aren't either because everyone thinks they got it right. Tell me is Thor a real god because we observe lightening? [4]

1. No, it really doesn't. Christians claim these events were supernatural (not-natural) in cause. Since the supernatural cannot be examined by science (by definition), it cannot comment on the cause. It can only describe the effect. 
2. I believe my religion is more evidenced, more plausible, and better describes the real world than others. It does not matter (nor concern me) that you cannot distinguish between them. 
3. Very original and sophisticated arguments. My faith has been shaken.
4. Yes. That is the reasoning I use and it can easily be applied to Thor. Good job at zeroing in on the issues.

If science can't test and falsify it why the fuck should it be assumed? Because you like it? Again, so what, Muslims cant test and falsify Allah. Jews cant test and falsify Yahweh. 

I have a giant invisible pink unicorn whom magically makes me truck loads of ice cream that suddenly appear in front of me upon praying to it. Now, that would be a claim beyond nature. But since you cant test and falsify that claim we have to assume it is true by default? Bullshit.

I don't play "if ifs and buts were candy and nuts".... And especially way after the fact. That was then and this is now. If you insist on being stuck in bronze age superstition, again, that is your baggage, but don't expect me to take it seriously.

[downbeatplumb]

Religious people are capable of accepting science up until it points away from their claims.

Which, when it comes to Christianity, it never does.

Well lets see shall we:

Magic man dun:

Turned water into wine.
Raised a man from the dead.
Walked on water.
fed 5000 people with a couple of loaves and a small packet of twiglets.

Then theres the:

Flood that never happened
The age of the earth out by billions of years
the exodus that did not happen
hair cutting makes men weak
etc etc et bloody cetera

those were just a few off the top of me noggin but if you look into it you will see that a Abrahamic and specifically Christian is incompatible with science.

[Angrboda]

He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the gutters, even in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and they mated when they came to drink. 39 So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

Genesis 30:38-39

Right. No conflict with science at all.

[Neo-Scholastic]

He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the gutters, even in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and they mated when they came to drink. 39 So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

Genesis 30:38-39

Right.  No conflict with science at all.

Not sure what your point is here. Sure the events of the bible do not square with ontological naturalism but neither do today's scientific findings exclude the exceptional events described within the biblical narrative. Many geological features can occur naturally. Then occasionally we come across something like this:

[Brian37]

Right.  No conflict with science at all.

Not sure what your point is here. Sure the events of the bible do not square with ontological naturalism but neither do today's scientific findings exclude the exceptional events described within the biblical narrative. Many geological features can occur naturally. Then occasionally we come across something like this:

You are already doing it. You've already tried to claim science cannot falsify god claims and that it is separate, but here you are trying to claim it does match your book. Cant have it both ways. And again, you are fooling yourself if you think Christians are the only ones who pull these tactics.

The bible is not a science textbook, neither is the Koran or Jewish OT nor Hindu Vedas nor the alleged writings of Buddha. 

You have no more evidence for your god claim, holy book or religion than any other. 

Now you post an internet picture claiming that proves your god exists? So what? People from other religions also pull that crap too.

[Crossless2.0]

He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the gutters, even in the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink; and they mated when they came to drink. 39 So the flocks mated by the rods, and the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

Genesis 30:38-39

Right.  No conflict with science at all.

Steve II already provided the standard dodge to this and every other perfectly good example you can provide: the cause is allegedly supernatural and therefore outside the purview of scientific inquiry and judgement.

Of course, it's all bullshit designed to avoid admitting one's religious stories are silly and antiquated. Reasoning with such people is largely a waste of time.

[SteveII]

1. No, it really doesn't. Christians claim these events were supernatural (not-natural) in cause. Since the supernatural cannot be examined by science (by definition), it cannot comment on the cause. It can only describe the effect. 
2. I believe my religion is more evidenced, more plausible, and better describes the real world than others. It does not matter (nor concern me) that you cannot distinguish between them. 
3. Very original and sophisticated arguments. My faith has been shaken.
4. Yes. That is the reasoning I use and it can easily be applied to Thor. Good job at zeroing in on the issues.

If science can't test and falsify it why the fuck should it be assumed? Because you like it? [1] Again, so what, Muslims cant test and falsify Allah. Jews cant test and falsify Yahweh. [2]

I have a giant invisible pink unicorn whom magically makes me truck loads of ice cream that suddenly appear in front of me upon praying to it. Now, that would be a claim beyond nature. But since you cant test and falsify that claim we have to assume it is true by default? Bullshit.[3]

I don't play "if ifs and buts were candy and nuts".... And especially way after the fact. That was then and this is now. If you insist on being stuck in bronze age superstition, again, that is your baggage, but don't expect me to take it seriously.[4]

1. Because I am convinced of the evidence for my belief. 
2. We can examine all religious belief systems for evidence, internal consistency, and how well it explains reality, and compare them to each other. 
3. Sophisticated rebuttal. How many people have seen the unicorn? Did they spend 3 years with it? Did it teach them things that made sense on a level not considered before? Did it perform miracles, die on a cross, and then rise again? Did it then spend another 40 days making appearances and talking to people? Did the people that it spoke to, in turn go out and put into practice what the unicorn instructed all over the known world--often at great personal costs? Do the people that follow these instructions testify of internal changes that were promised? Has this been going on for millennium? Are there over 2 billion people that believe that all these things happened in this order? If not, you are comparing apples to oranges. 
4. You have such a simplistic picture in your head about what you are arguing about and therefore you think your objections carry some intellectual weight. The picture is wrong and your objections are simplistic and mundane. You seem to be just another angry New Atheist that thinks their ideology is something special--it's not--just recycled, philosophically bankrupt opinion with some anger thrown in.

[Brian37]

Right.  No conflict with science at all.

Steve II already provided the standard dodge to this and every other perfectly good example you can provide: the cause is allegedly supernatural and therefore outside the purview of scientific inquiry and judgement.

Of course, it's all bullshit designed to avoid admitting one's religious stories are silly and antiquated. Reasoning with such people is largely a waste of time.

No unfortunately it is not a waste of time. Problem is religion gets peddled mostly to children before they can formulate adult critical thinking skills and in greater numbers that ends up competing at a political and global level and that in turn can affect you even when you don't want it to.

It is still important to read the history of as much of the world's religious history so that you can call out the bad logic. It is also still important so that other skeptics can view arguments they may not have considered. I can tell you when I first identified my position as "atheist" I was very ignorant 17 years ago compared to today. Having seen the posts of other atheists lead me to read more from scientists and other atheists. 

You cant force any religion out of existence, no, but ignoring it is foolish too. I think it is very important to have these websites and debates, not about winning a game but about exposing more to the value of questioning and skepticism. It is harder to indoctrinate someone when they are well armed. Theists often come in here thinking falsely that we are lost puppies to be saved. Many are shocked when we dont simply say "That sounds great, where do I join up?".