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

[Catholic_Lady]

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.  

I remember hearing a preacher say, with the respect Gen 6:1, that in the bible "all means all all the time," therefore the flood covered the entire earth. You're making the same mistake. You're trying to say that the authors of the bible intended to record such things as historical accounts using modern narrating conventions. Ancient Hebrew superlatives are often used for emphasis not as statements of fact. It's like me saying "This is the best burger ever!" We know that because there are multiple examples of superlative being used in just that way in other locations. The fact of the matter, is that the bible cannot contradict the findings of modern science because it's not making any scientific claims in the first place! Likewise the story of Jacob's ewes isn't a scientific claim about genetics or even and account of animal husbandry practices in the ancient world. To read it like that is just inappropriate.

Exactly this! 

Though I'm not sure why we have to keep repeating over and over again that many (if not most) of us Christians do not believe the OT is to be taken as word for word, literal, historical fact.

[Crossless2.0]

I remember hearing a preacher say, with the respect Gen 6:1, that in the bible "all means all all the time," therefore the flood covered the entire earth. You're making the same mistake. You're trying to say that the authors of the bible intended to record such things as historical accounts using modern narrating conventions. Ancient Hebrew superlatives are often used for emphasis not as statements of fact. It's like me saying "This is the best burger ever!" We know that because there are multiple examples of superlative being used in just that way in other locations. The fact of the matter, is that the bible cannot contradict the findings of modern science because it's not making any scientific claims in the first place! Likewise the story of Jacob's ewes isn't a scientific claim about genetics or even and account of animal husbandry practices in the ancient world. To read it like that is just inappropriate.

Exactly this! 

Though I'm not sure why we have to keep repeating over and over again that many (if not most) of us Christians do not believe the OT is to be taken as word for word, literal, historical fact.

That's ok, CL. You still have the NT that you most likely do take as literal historical fact, which is bad enough.  

You get to keep your True Believer card. 

[Neo-Scholastic]

I remember hearing a preacher say, with the respect Gen 6:1, that in the bible "all means all all the time," therefore the flood covered the entire earth. You're making the same mistake. You're trying to say that the authors of the bible intended to record such things as historical accounts using modern narrating conventions. Ancient Hebrew superlatives are often used for emphasis not as statements of fact. It's like me saying "This is the best burger ever!" We know that because there are multiple examples of superlative being used in just that way in other locations. The fact of the matter, is that the bible cannot contradict the findings of modern science because it's not making any scientific claims in the first place! Likewise the story of Jacob's ewes isn't a scientific claim about genetics or even and account of animal husbandry practices in the ancient world. To read it like that is just inappropriate.

The Bible doesn't make scientific claims, per se. However, it makes certain claims that can be evaluated through a scientific filter. Old-earth creationists -- of which I gather you are one -- don't stumble much over the Genesis creationist accounts, but YECs flatly contradict everything we now know about the age of the cosmos and our planet. At the least, you can agree that science provides a frame of reference in which certain approaches to reading the Bible are flatly ruled out, no?

Yes, I would agree to that. The way I see it, the findings of modern natural science greatly enhance our understanding of the biblical narratives. At the same time I think it is important to remember that the findings of science are always tentative. The saving grace of Jesus does not depend on whether our universe has an eternal past or started with a bang. On one thing the text is clear - God was the Creator regardless of whether it was created by divine intervention or providential order.

[Crossless2.0]

The Bible doesn't make scientific claims, per se. However, it makes certain claims that can be evaluated through a scientific filter. Old-earth creationists -- of which I gather you are one -- don't stumble much over the Genesis creationist accounts, but YECs flatly contradict everything we now know about the age of the cosmos and our planet. At the least, you can agree that science provides a frame of reference in which certain approaches to reading the Bible are flatly ruled out, no?

Yes, I would agree to that. The way I see it, the findings of modern natural science greatly enhance our understanding of the biblical narratives. At the same time I think it is important to remember that the findings of science are always tentative. The saving grace of Jesus does not depend on whether our universe has an eternal past or started with a bang. On one thing the text is clear - God was the Creator regardless of whether it was created by divine intervention or providential order.

Just out of curiosity, which scientific findings do you think enhance our understanding of which Biblical narratives?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Just out of curiosity, which scientific findings do you think enhance our understanding of which Biblical narratives?

The first thing that comes to mind is human physiology. It sheds light on the Crucifixion, Jesus sweating blood, etc.

[downbeatplumb]

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:

There is an artist that goes around carefully balancing stones to take cool photos of them. It was an item on the seven o clock show.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I remember hearing a preacher say, with the respect Gen 6:1, that in the bible "all means all all the time," therefore the flood covered the entire earth. You're making the same mistake. You're trying to say that the authors of the bible intended to record such things as historical accounts using modern narrating conventions. Ancient Hebrew superlatives are used for emphasis not as statements of fact. It's like me saying "This is the best burger ever!" We know that because there are multiple examples of superlative being used in just that way in other locations.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that is a modern narrating convention.... As you gave as an example, it's quite common in this era, and in another language I might add.   "All the world" can have a couple of different contexts, depending on how it is used.  The principle of charity, says that you should use the one that makes the most sense.  Now I have a high view of the Scriptures and too a large extent I am a Biblical literalness (not saying that everything is meant to be literal), but I think there are those on both sides, who try to over analyze, and take the Bible other than as it was intended.

Without knowing the specifics, I can't really speculate too much about where we would differ other than perhaps the extent of special creation. I would say; however, that the appearance of Abraham is where we start to see descriptions that would have been considered local historical events by the authors. This as opposed to general statements about the functional order of the world found in the first few chapters of Genesis. To my mind the genealogies seem to smooth the transition from largely figurative events (the deluge, the confusion of tongues, etc.) to actual events, like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and there's the trouble...the "actual events" are no more or less mythological than the nonsense you're desperate to rid yourself of in genesis.

Why toss out a part of magic book if the act of tossing it doesn't even lighten the load?

[downbeatplumb]

[quote pid='1529122' dateline='1490379227']
to actual events, like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

[/quote]

Actual Events eh.
There is no consensus that they existed at all.
Given the number of things that the bible made up I doubt they did.

[Neo-Scholastic]

[quote pid='1529122' dateline='1490379227']
to actual events, like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Actual Events eh.
There is no consensus that they existed at all.
Given the number of things that the bible made up I doubt they did.

Skeptics didn't think the pool of Bethesda existed either...until it was found.