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

[downbeatplumb]

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.

Have Sodom and Gomorrah been found and if so do they show signs of being destroyed by means other than natural.

So even if they were real places which I doubt.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

I would certainly agree, with the distinction you are making; between revelation, and the historic writings.  I use to be very liberal, in my belief or lack thereof at times (when I first became a Christian).  Anymore I'm more conservative,   I have gained a trust, and I believe all the Bible.  However especially in the area you are talking about I'm tentative and open to discussion.  Even the ancient Jewish commentaries on the beginning of Genesis debated on how poetic the writing was to be considered.

(by the way... I like the avatar!)

[Angrboda]

Typical apologetic trash. Intentionalist fallacy with a healthy dose of ad hoc interpretation. Total bullshit, Chad, Mr. "I take things as they seem" (except when it comes to the bible). Total bullshit.

[Pat Mustard]

Everyone has an intuitive belief in fairness and yet there is no evidence supporting that belief? Is there anyone willing to say that people are unjustified and/or irrational for believing in fairness?

So the fact that humanity evolved as a social species is proof of god? Pull the other one Wooters, it's got bells on.

---

When it comes to "James Reference" - unlike the infamous Testimonium Flavianum passage it seems that this is indeed Josephus writing about some James, but then it goes against books of "Church History" the so called "Historia Ecclesiastica" because writers of those books agree James was stumbled on alone by an angry mob that seized him in the street, threw him off the temple roof and stoned him.

The James passage literally states that it Josephus is talking about "James, the brother of Jesus Damnaeus" meaning that it in no way references the biblical Yeshua. It'd be like using a passage in the Connacht Tribune stating "Hauley, the brother of James" to make out that LeBron James has a long lost Irish brother named Michael.

---

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), there is no point in thinking it has any bearing on reality.

Fixed your post. If we cannot observe a phenomenon, if we cannot test it, if we cannot evaluate it, if we cannot compare it to something we know exists, then why the fuck should we consider it real?

If something is real it is natural, if something is discovered it is natural. If something is supernatural, it is not real.

[Pat Mustard]

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.

And the way Yeshua was supposed to have been crucified per the bible is impossible. Firstly, having the nails pushed through his palms would have meant they ripped through his hands and out between his fingers as soon as any weight was put upon them when he was hoisted (that's why in actual crucifixions, convicts were either nailed through the wrists or tied), and secondly, there is no way he would have died so quickly. With his feet placed on a platform Yeshua would have survived for days before eventually succumbing to a combination of dehydration and exposure unless both his legs were broken (again something the Romans actually knew, because if they were crucifying simply to kill, they broke the convicts legs shortly after placing them on the cross).

[Brian37]

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.

We don't have to go beyond your first numbered bullet.

"1.Because I am convinced of the evidence for my belief"

Yea ok. I am sure you believe it and? 

And others are "convinced" of the "evidence" of the Koran"

And others are "convinced" of the "evidence of the Torah/Talmud"

And others are "convinced" of the "evidence" of Buddha.

And others are "convinced" of the "evidence" of the Hindu Vedas,

How about considering someone introduced you to those claims when you didn't have the best data? How about considering when you first bought the claim you were merely seeing others whom you thought were smart and right and wanted something to belong to?

I am sure you are convinced, but so what? Again, others are "convinced" they are correct and you are wrong.

Maybe it merely amounts to the religious of the world of all labels buying a claim without kicking the tires and not having the knowledge to question what they are sold?

Take any argument you might make, and wherever you use "my god" or "my book" replace it with another you don't buy into yourself. Then ask yourself if the argument you use yourself would still work.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"1.Because I am convinced of the evidence for my belief"
Yea ok. I am sure you believe it and? 
And others are "convinced" of the "evidence" of the Koran"
And others are "convinced" of the "evidence of the Torah/Talmud"
And others are "convinced" of the "evidence" of Buddha.
And others are "convinced" of the "evidence" of the Hindu Vedas,

You guys need to decide which it will be. On the one hand, you say because various world religions contradict each other that means they are all false. Then you turn around and say there isn't any reason to choose one over the other 'cause they're all the same. Which is it?

---

Typical apologetic trash.  Intentionalist fallacy with a healthy dose of ad hoc interpretation.  Total bullshit, Chad, Mr. "I take things as they seem" (except when it comes to the bible).  Total bullshit.

I wonder how someone, such as yourself, can so readily recognize nuance in the natural sciences and philosophy and yet be so oblivious to it in other areas such as hermeneutics and semiotics.

[Brian37]

"1.Because I am convinced of the evidence for my belief"
Yea ok. I am sure you believe it and? 
And others are "convinced" of the "evidence" of the Koran"
And others are "convinced" of the "evidence of the Torah/Talmud"
And others are "convinced" of the "evidence" of Buddha.
And others are "convinced" of the "evidence" of the Hindu Vedas,

You guys need to decide which it will be. On the one hand, you say because various world religions contradict each other that means they are all false. Then you turn around and say there isn't any reason to choose one over the other 'cause they're all the same. Which is it?

---

Typical apologetic trash.  Intentionalist fallacy with a healthy dose of ad hoc interpretation.  Total bullshit, Chad, Mr. "I take things as they seem" (except when it comes to the bible).  Total bullshit.

I wonder how someone, such as yourself, can so readily recognize nuance in the natural sciences and philosophy and yet be so oblivious to it in other areas such as hermeneutics and semiotics.

Fine, if you stupidly think that is a contradiction on our part, you and all the other religions of the world and god claimants figure out a neutral formula  and neutral lab, and when you all figure out who got it right, come back to us with your findings. You are welcome to try, but again, our species is far older than any written religion.

[vorlon13]

Don't forget to test fro Baneemy too !!!

Mormon communism might be Gods True Religion !!!

[Amarok]

Even if it's ture that occasionally skeptics were wrong that no more supports the bible then not after all the bible is folklore . And even if the bible got some things right that actually fails to support the narrative as a whole .