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

[RoadRunner79]

Brian,

It doesn't matter what you imagine are my tactics, intentions, or motivations.  Because yet again, this is just a diversion away from the argument.   Perhaps you prefer to argue for what you imagine, rather than what is being said.   It does make it easier to knock down.


Again you are making up, and putting words in my mouth.  (My guess is because is, because you don't want to deal with what is actually being said).  I won't speak for the others, but at the moment, I don't want to follow a red herring to a different topic.  Some would use this, to avoid the particular conclusions being discussed at the moment.


Just a note, but the topics we are discussing aren't done in a lab.   And yet again, you feel the need to tell me my reasons, and ignore the ones I and others have given.....  You seem to imagine a lot of reasons, to avoid this topic.  I don't even believe you understand what it is yet.

Of course these arguments are not done in a lab, because if you could do that, you wouldn't be here mentally masturbating trying to convince yourself you are right. You could literally take your claim to a lab.

I'm sure all the theoretical physicists and cosmologist would appreciate your die-respect for their work. I suppose you think trolling, and repeating the same foolish statements over and over again is noble?

[Brian37]

Of course these arguments are not done in a lab, because if you could do that, you wouldn't be here mentally masturbating trying to convince yourself you are right. You could literally take your claim to a lab.

I'm sure all the theoretical physicists and cosmologist would appreciate your die-respect for their work.  I suppose you think trolling, and repeating the same foolish statements over and over again is noble?

AGAIN 

science=Allah
science=Yahweh
science=Buddha
science= Brahama 
science= Generic/deist, even though I am really lying and have a specific pet claim.

Now you use "theoretical physicists" as another dodge.

I already said scientists exist in every nation and in every religion and?

Those religious and even just "deist" theoretical physicists among themselves would still be stuck with who is right and still would need to agree on a neutral method and still need to compare and contrast and still be willing to hand their claims over for peer review. 

Theoretical physicist = Allah
Theoretical physicist =Yahweh
Theoretical physicist= Buddha
Theoretical physicist = Brahama
Theoretical physicist= "Generic diest"

Scientist being religious does not make them neutral if they try to bring their own bias in it without control groups and peer review. 

You are simply hiding behind word salad.

Three books that would give you insight if you were brave enough to read.

1. God The failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger A SCIENTIST
2. The New Atheist by Victor Stenger also
3. The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins PHD evolutionary biologist.

4. But since you like physicists try Laurence Krauss too. 

Stop getting stuck in your echo chamber.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I suppose you think trolling, and repeating the same foolish statements over and over again is noble?

Cyberman (formerly Stimbo) has informed me that by AF standards Brian is not trolling. So, he's really just being a prick.

[RoadRunner79]

I suppose you think trolling, and repeating the same foolish statements over and over again is noble?

Cyberman (formerly Stimbo) has informed me that by AF standards Brian is not trolling. So, he's really just being a prick.

I've tried to get him back on topic... he just runs away from it.... I'm done with him any way.
Some may think that calling people names, and putting them down is winning,.., I don't feel that way

[masterofpuppets]

Cyberman (formerly Stimbo) has informed me that by AF standards Brian is not trolling. So, he's really just being a prick.

I've tried to get him back on topic... he just runs away from it....   I'm done with him any way.
Some may think that calling people names, and putting them down is winning,.., I don't feel that way

You're completely missing the point. You just want to keep on talking about how Brian is "trolling" and "not on topic" when it seems like YOU don't understand the point he's making. You're essentially committing an ad hominem fallacy.

Gods are just nonsense. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. It doesn't take more than a few minutes to see how deities were all just made up by humans during a time when they felt scared and lonely, or even worse, when they wanted to control other people. Either that or your specific god actually exists. Why are you correct when a Hindu is wrong? A Hindu can point out as many absurdities (probably more) in your religion than you can point out in his.

[Neo-Scholastic]

it seems like YOU don't understand the point he's making. ...Gods are just nonsense. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. ...Why are you correct when a Hindu is wrong? A Hindu can point out as many absurdities (probably more) in your religion than you can point out in his.

I did reply. Brina, and now you, seem not to have noticed. All major religions agree with respect to the god of classical theism as revealed by general revelation, which is all that matters for the fine-tuning argument. They do differ with respect to special revelation, but that is OFF-TOPIC.

[masterofpuppets]

it seems like YOU don't understand the point he's making. ...Gods are just nonsense. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. ...Why are you correct when a Hindu is wrong? A Hindu can point out as many absurdities (probably more) in your religion than you can point out in his.

I did reply. Brina, and now you, seem not to have noticed. All major religions agree with respect to the god of classical theism as revealed by general revelation, which is all that matters for the fine-tuning argument. They do differ with respect to special revelation, but that is OFF-TOPIC.

Oops, I seem to have missed your response to Brian the first time I browsed through that section of the thread. My apologies.

You are correct in that the fine-tuning argument does not point to a specific god, but that's not the issue I was addressing just now. My point is that it doesn't make sense to assume a specific divine agency if the fine-tuning argument is sound (and it's not even necessary that the fine-tuner was a deity), because there is no basis to assume the existence of one god over another given that the evidence for all of them is equally poor. In that sense, the fine-tuning argument has little to do with proving any god due to the vagueness of its conclusion.

[Firewalker]

For this thread let us lump all denominations of atheism, agnosticism, and soft non deistic worldviews into one.

Feel free to state your  best argument or  compelling reasons.

The more you lean about theology, apologetics, and the atheists arguments (and their rebuttals), it clears away any compelling argument for atheism. I think people believe the case for atheism to be much stronger than it really is and/or that Christianity is much more impervious to assault than it really is.

---

The more you lean about theology, apologetics, and the atheists arguments (and their rebuttals), it clears away any compelling argument for atheism. I think people believe the case for atheism to be much stronger than it really is and/or that Christianity is much more impervious to assault than it really iT

There is no argument necessary for Atheism. It is non-belief in a story others have told. Now you can try to explain why others may have come to their mistaken beliefs, but those aren't an argument FOR Atheism. For instance, at our earliest existence we experienced Night and Day. We couldn't see at night, so our imagination created ways to survive the dark.  I believe that is where the earliest formation of a theology began. Is that an argument for atheism? No.

[Brian37]

it seems like YOU don't understand the point he's making. ...Gods are just nonsense. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. ...Why are you correct when a Hindu is wrong? A Hindu can point out as many absurdities (probably more) in your religion than you can point out in his.

I did reply. Brina, and now you, seem not to have noticed. All major religions agree with respect to the god of classical theism as revealed by general revelation, which is all that matters for the fine-tuning argument. They do differ with respect to special revelation, but that is OFF-TOPIC.

"All the major religions agree"

No, all the major religions argue as to which deity science points to.

Most of the world's population also thought falsely the earth was flat. Most people have a god belief, no shit. I am telling you that is NOT because a god is real, it is because MOST humans are stuck in the past and traditions are hard to give up, nothing more. The real reason humans make up god beliefs is because false perceptions get handed down to the youth before they can formulate critical thinking skills. Our species prior to even written tradition GAP FILLED by projecting their own human qualities on the world arround them. 

Popular is not an argument. The Egyptian gods were popular once. Apollo was popular once. Neither were real.

Now if anyone had anything you could LITERALLY DO THIS.

Muslim/Christian/Jew/Hindu/Buddhist/deist+neutral lab=neutral formula=peer review.

Dont fucking hand me any shit about most scientists agree. NO scientists who are religious DO NOT AGREE. To claim that is fucking bullshit. 

HUMANS MAKE UP GODS and that gap filling is a PLACEBO, a reflection of their own human qualities, nothing more. It is a false perception. It is no different than a dog barking at it's own reflection in the mirror.

[Fidel_Castronaut]