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

[RoadRunner79]

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.

We can look at your reasoning if you like.  I do hope it is better than the ad hominem seen so far!

Also, if science makes a naturalistic explanation of the evidence improbable, I don't think that helps your case.  It also doesn't show that it is false.

[Crossless2.0]

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.

We can look at your reasoning if you like.  I do hope it is better than the ad hominem seen so far!

Also, if science makes a naturalistic explanation of the evidence improbable, I don't think that helps your case.  It also doesn't show that it is false.

I stand corrected. It's not a dodge. It's sophisticated philosophy of science. 

You seem confused about the difference between mere claims and actual evidence. I don't think that helps your case. In any event, no: science doesn't falsify such claims. However, common sense coupled with an approach to the claims that doesn't require prior credulity to buttress a religious conclusion certainly argues against it. It's not my job to support your claims.

[Brian37]

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.

We can look at your reasoning if you like.  I do hope it is better than the ad hominem seen so far!

Also, if science makes a naturalistic explanation of the evidence improbable, I don't think that helps your case.  It also doesn't show that it is false.

Saying "You are full of shit" is not an ad hominem. It is merely being blunt. 

Me, "I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass".

Is that statement true? No? I agree, that is a bullshit claim.


Things are not true by default until proven false otherwise all god claims are equally true all at the same time. Nobody buys that logic ever. If it worked like that, since you cannot see me right now, I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass. 

"Allah is real until you prove he isn't real" still make sense? "Yahweh is real until you prove he isn't real" "still make sense? "Apollo is real until you prove he isn't" still make sense? "I am dating Angelina Jolie and unless you can prove I am not, I am". Still make sense?

Claims are not equal by default, claims are not true by default. Scientific method does not presume a damned thing as a default position and you don't simply plug anything into it just because you like it. 

Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence".

You are shifting the burden of proof and people of all religions do this when they cannot provide evidence, "Prove it isn't true". That is hardly an ad hominem to call that tactic bullshit.

[RoadRunner79]

We can look at your reasoning if you like.  I do hope it is better than the ad hominem seen so far!

Also, if science makes a naturalistic explanation of the evidence improbable, I don't think that helps your case.  It also doesn't show that it is false.

I stand corrected. It's not a dodge. It's sophisticated philosophy of science. 

You seem confused about the difference between mere claims and actual evidence. I don't think that helps your case. In any event, no: science doesn't falsify such claims. However, common sense coupled with an approach to the claims that doesn't require prior credulity to buttress a religious conclusion certainly argues against it. It's not my job to support your claims.

Nope... it's not your job to support my claims...  but it is to support your own claims. 

And to what claim are of mine are you referring to here?   I didn't say all that much.   One might think this is a misdirection to avoid the reasoning, that you think is a waste of time.

[Brian37]

See if you can spot the pattern SteveII.

"What specifically do you think that Islam has walked back due to a new discovery?"
"What specifically do you think that Hebrew has walked back due to a new discovery?"
"What specifically do you think Buddhism has walked back due to a new discovery?"
"What specifically do you think Scientology has walked back do to a new discovery?"
"What specifically do you think Hinduism has walked back do to a new discovery?"....

Every religion has members whom, when they cant make a positive argument for their position, either try to attack science, and when they cant do that, they try to co opt science after the fact to point to their club.[1]

Our species is much older than any written religion. Our planet is 4 billion years old. Our universe is 13.8 billion years old with 100s of billions of galaxies in it. Humans are not important to this planet or the universe. Our clubs and superstitions and religions we make up, are just that, made up, mere placebos humans create as false perceptions and gap answers because of our own narcissism and fear of being finite. [2]

There are no such things as super natural beings with super powers. The only place your god exists is in your head, just as made up as Apollo and Thor. The only difference between calling something a religion and calling it mythology, is that one is dead and the other is currently still popular. [3]

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.

Nope, you are not going to lie and try to confuse "opinion" with fact. YOU have a position, you have no evidence for your position. If you had provable facts and not an unfounded position you wouldn't have to resort to falsely trying to bring the word "opinion" into this.

If you had facts there would be no need to use the word "opinion". But again, you defend the bible and others defend the Koran and others Buddha, and others the Vedas and they all have the same amount of facts to back them up. If any religion were a provable fact in a scientific reality we would have seen evidence of it 4 billion and 13.8 billion years ago. But funny that it only came around when humans popped on the scene and only started writing them down 10,000 years ago. Funny how we don't see cockroaches or trees invent religion and those are species far older than humans.

[RoadRunner79]

We can look at your reasoning if you like.  I do hope it is better than the ad hominem seen so far!

Also, if science makes a naturalistic explanation of the evidence improbable, I don't think that helps your case.  It also doesn't show that it is false.

Saying "You are full of shit" is not an ad hominem. It is merely being blunt. 

Me, "I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass".

Is that statement true? No? I agree, that is a bullshit claim.


Things are not true by default until proven false otherwise all god claims are equally true all at the same time. Nobody buys that logic ever. If it worked like that, since you cannot see me right now, I can fart a Lamborghini out of my ass. 

"Allah is real until you prove he isn't real" still make sense? "Yahweh is real until you prove he isn't real" "still make sense? "Apollo is real until you prove he isn't" still make sense? "I am dating Angelina Jolie and unless you can prove I am not, I am". Still make sense?

Claims are not equal by default, claims are not true by default. Scientific method does not presume a damned thing as a default position and you don't simply plug anything into it just because you like it. 

Christopher Hitchens, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be just as easily dismissed without evidence".

You are shifting the burden of proof and people of all religions do this when they cannot provide evidence, "Prove it isn't true". That is hardly an ad hominem to call that tactic bullshit.

On what did I shift the burden of proof?  Where did I do this here?  

You are making a lot of arguments, for things I never said.  You however have made a number of claims, and seem to think that it is on me, to prove them false.   I find this odd (given your above assertion).

And I agree, that things are not true by default, I would also add, that they are not false by default either.  I find that your wild assumptions don't reflect what I believe much at all, so I don't think they apply.

[Crossless2.0]

I stand corrected. It's not a dodge. It's sophisticated philosophy of science. 

You seem confused about the difference between mere claims and actual evidence. I don't think that helps your case. In any event, no: science doesn't falsify such claims. However, common sense coupled with an approach to the claims that doesn't require prior credulity to buttress a religious conclusion certainly argues against it. It's not my job to support your claims.

Nope... it's not your job to support my claims...  but it is to support your own claims. 

And to what claim are of mine are you referring to here?   I didn't say all that much.   One might think this is a misdirection to avoid the reasoning, that you think is a waste of time.

My claim is pretty straightforward: Christians (of which you are one, if I'm not mistaken) make a number of claims based on their scriptures that fly in the face of everything we now know about how the world works. When pressed to justify these beliefs, they dodge the issue and try to lay the legwork on the skeptic: "Prove it's not true. After all, the cause of these extraordinary events we claim happened is supernatural! If science can't disprove the claim, you have no reason to say they're false." Etc., etc.

But aside from the book itself, which is the source of your claims and not the evidence for them, you have nothing. Without a prior commitment to believing in the veracity and factuality of the source, it would never occur to you to lend credence to some of these stories -- any more than you do for similarly fantastic stories from traditions not your own. You are likely a proper skeptic when it comes to those other beliefs, but a special pleader when it comes to yours (assuming, of course, you are a Christian).

[Brian37]

I stand corrected. It's not a dodge. It's sophisticated philosophy of science. 

You seem confused about the difference between mere claims and actual evidence. I don't think that helps your case. In any event, no: science doesn't falsify such claims. However, common sense coupled with an approach to the claims that doesn't require prior credulity to buttress a religious conclusion certainly argues against it. It's not my job to support your claims.

Nope... it's not your job to support my claims...  but it is to support your own claims. 

And to what claim are of mine are you referring to here?   I didn't say all that much.   One might think this is a misdirection to avoid the reasoning, that you think is a waste of time.

I agree, it is not my job to support your claims. Stop right there, the rest is bullshit. How about you simply consider your claims are out of antiquity and simply flat out bad guesses?

[RoadRunner79]

Nope... it's not your job to support my claims...  but it is to support your own claims. 

And to what claim are of mine are you referring to here?   I didn't say all that much.   One might think this is a misdirection to avoid the reasoning, that you think is a waste of time.

I agree, it is not my job to support your claims. Stop right there, the rest is bullshit. How about you simply consider your claims are out of antiquity and simply flat out bad guesses?

Are you familiar with the fallacy of the appeal to novelty? If you want to make a case for it, I am happy to listen!

[Angrboda]

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

You should have stopped here. Instead you go on to post foolish nonsense.

but neither do today's scientific findings exclude the exceptional events described within the biblical narrative.

"It coulda happened..." That's incredibly weak shit, Chad. What it does do is impugns their credibility. Only an irrational person believes things that aren't credible.

Many geological features can occur naturally. Then occasionally we come across something like this:

A set of small rocks balanced upon one another? Really Chad. Your apologetic here is a total fail. Things like a global flood or striped goats are indeed ruled out by science. Your pointing to unlikely events actually happening is a conflation between unlikely and implausible.

My point is that there are indeed conflicts between science and the bible. And your attempt to defend them is stupid and inane.