The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[JimL]

I don't think there exists any single 'knock-out' arguments either way.

There are obviously specific arguments that can be levied against particular religions based on particular religious teachings. But I think that overall the most powerful general argument for atheism is a general evidence-based one: We can reasonably expect that if there was a god then the world would be different in a number of ways. (this is somewhat cheating in terms of being a single argument because there are sub-components):
(a) there would be less diversity of religions within the world and it would be more obvious that a particular religion was right rather than them all having a roughly equal lack of evidence for them
(b) there would be obvious miracles that occurred in the world, and the invention of everyone having cellphones and video cameras should mean that youtube should have a hundred thousand compelling videos of miracles happening, and the international media would be able to provide video footage of a person's leg growing back as the shaman prayed over the person.
(c) Religious people who felt they had been 'given a message from God' would be right more often and agree with each other more.
(d) there would be less naturally occurring suffering in the world (disease, earthquakes, etc).
(e) a deity could create the world and the life on it instantly, but everything we know about astronomy and biology tells us that naturalistic processes over billions of years were what formed our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, and evolved life on it.

To phrase it as a single argument: The world as I observe it does not show any of the kinds of thing I would expect to see in a world created by or actively interfered with by a deity, whereas the observed world seems entirely consistent with the lack of a deity. Thus the weight of the observed evidence points to atheism (or something close to it - e.g. that the deity's interference is minuscule).

Another good argument against Christianity is that if God had created the world as a crucible for human developement, then he wouldn't have created dinosaurs millions of years prior to creating humans. Of course the authors of the bible, and Adam and Eve, had no knowledge of evolution, dinosaurs, or the age of the universe, so its understandable as to why they thought it was all about them.

[Tassman]

Another good argument against Christianity is that if God had created the world as a crucible for human developement, then he wouldn't have created dinosaurs millions of years prior to creating humans. Of course the authors of the bible, and Adam and Eve, had no knowledge of evolution, dinosaurs, or the age of the universe, so its understandable as to why they thought it was all about them.

Sadly, neither do many religious fundamentalists. E.g. Ken Ham’s Ark recreation has the dinosaurs traipsing on board right along with the giraffes and elephants.

[Starlight]

Sadly, neither do many religious fundamentalists. E.g. Ken Ham’s Ark recreation has the dinosaurs traipsing on board right along with the giraffes and elephants.

I told my 4 year old nephew that nobody knew what had wiped out the dinosaurs. He thought about it for a while, and then announced that they were killed by giants with big sticks. It sounds about as plausible as a Ken Ham theory.

[tabibito]

Another good argument against Christianity is that if God had created the world as a crucible for human developement, then he wouldn't have created dinosaurs millions of years prior to creating humans. Of course the authors of the bible, and Adam and Eve, had no knowledge of evolution, dinosaurs, or the age of the universe, so its understandable as to why they thought it was all about them.

Starlight does present a logical and coherent argument - I've never seen that kind of presentation anywhere before.
It does have weaknesses in the underlying premises, but those weaknesses would be difficult to demonstrate except by a saint or three.

[One Bad Pig]

Another good argument against Christianity is that if God had created the world as a crucible for human developement, then he wouldn't have created dinosaurs millions of years prior to creating humans. Of course the authors of the bible, and Adam and Eve, had no knowledge of evolution, dinosaurs, or the age of the universe, so its understandable as to why they thought it was all about them.

You may be forgiven for thinking this way due to exposure to nothing more than certain Protestant beliefs, but Christianity is about all of creation, not just man.

[Tassman]

I told my 4 year old nephew that nobody knew what had wiped out the dinosaurs. He thought about it for a while, and then announced that they were killed by giants with big sticks. It sounds about as plausible as a Ken Ham theory.

Well a 4 year old is at about the same intellectual level as Ken Ham and the YEC's.

[Sparko]

Another good argument against Christianity is that if God had created the world as a crucible for human developement, then he wouldn't have created dinosaurs millions of years prior to creating humans.

He had to give palentologists something to do.

[rogue06]

Another good argument against Christianity is that if God had created the world as a crucible for human developement, then he wouldn't have created dinosaurs millions of years prior to creating humans. Of course the authors of the bible, and Adam and Eve, had no knowledge of evolution, dinosaurs, or the age of the universe, so its understandable as to why they thought it was all about them.

[Adrift]

Starlight does present a logical and coherent argument - I've never seen that kind of presentation anywhere before.
It does have weaknesses in the underlying premises, but those weaknesses would be difficult to demonstrate except by a saint or three.

William Lane Craig has, in my opinion, tackled (a) thoroughly and convincingly in his essay, "'No Other Name': A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ" where he basically points out that Molinism offers good reason for God ordering the world in such a way so that the most people who will come to a salvational knowledge of Jesus do so.

(b) is just an extension of the old "hiddenness of God" argument which has been dealt with by a number of apologists. Also, it should come to no surprise that miracles, by their very nature, are rare. Even if more miracles were captured on video, people would find ways of not accepting the evidence. Craig Keener's relatively recent two volume "Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts" documents a long list of modern examples. Finally, Jesus pointed out that he couldn't do many works in his own hometown because of the lack of faith there. In the 21st century wealthy West where cynicism and severe skepticism is considered a virtue, it's hardly a wonder that miracles seem rare, and those that do happen are doubted.

The problem with religious people in (c) isn't that they're religious, but that they're people. I don't know if there's a litmus test for how "right" religious people are compared to non-religious people. I'm not even sure what that means, but I'm willing to bet that atheists are in just as much disagreement with one another as religious people are. The great thing about Christianity is that, aside from the central tenets of the faith, we are free to be in disagreement with one another. "In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity". William Lane Craig has a wonderful visual aid for this where he explains how the doctrines and tenets of the faith can be looked at as a web, with the essential tenets naturally in the center...and how those tenets become less essential as we move away from the center towards the periphery. I was raised in a cult that taught that Christianity was a hopeless mess of denominational disharmony that proved that it was false. One of the most astonishing things I discovered upon becoming a Christian was just how united in so many essential areas Christianity actually was, and reading the early Church Fathers only continued to impress that upon me. I honestly think that a lot of people who were raised Christian sometimes take how united we are in so many areas for granted. Should we strive for more ecumencism? Absolutely, but the situation is far from hopeless, and one day Christ will personally lead us back into perfect unity.

(d) is just part of the problem of evil argument. It has a number of answers shared with the usual rebuttal to the PoE. William Lane Craig and Paul Copan take that stance that natural disasters are simply the expected results of a universe operating according to natural laws, and that these laws were established with the purpose of maximizing God's purpose for human creation. Others point out that nature is reeling from the presence of sin in the world, and that Satan is still the god of this world, and looks for any way that he can to steal, kill, and destroy.

(e) is only an issue for a God with limited resources and limited time. Again, Craig puts it beautifully when he states, "This whole model of God as the engineer who has to marshal his resources and use them only in the most efficient way is...just a very defective understanding of who God is, who, I think, is probably more like the artist who enjoys creating a beautifully fine-tuned universe."



This presentation isn't very novel. Most of these issues have been discussed in apologetic circles for ages. I do think Wall underestimated Starlight though. Starlight is dishonest, vain, morally jacked, and has about as bad a memory as he does reading comprehension, but he's not an idiot. He's spent enough time in his little anti-Christian echo chambers to memorize all of the standard skeptical arguments. I also think Wall's historical argument, while having merit once someone already accepts the existence of the divine, and the miraculous, carries less weight to an out and out atheist/agnostic. Natural theology is probably the better way to go when dealing with someone who doesn't even believe in God.

[JimL]

William Lane Craig has, in my opinion, tackled (a) thoroughly and convincingly in his essay, "'No Other Name': A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ" where he basically points out that Molinism offers good reason for God ordering the world in such a way so that the most people who will come to a salvational knowledge of Jesus do so.

The most people who would come do so, or all people who would come, do so? What differentiates those who would come and did so, from those who would come, but didn't. I don't think this definition of your argument makes sense.

(b) is just an extension of the old "hiddenness of God" argument which has been dealt with by a number of apologists. Also, it should come to no surprise that miracles, by their very nature, are rare. Even if more miracles were captured on video, people would find ways of not accepting the evidence. Craig Keener's relatively recent two volume "Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts" documents a long list of modern examples. Finally, Jesus pointed out that he couldn't do many works in his own hometown because of the lack of faith there. In the 21st century wealthy West where cynicism and severe skepticism is considered a virtue, it's hardly a wonder that miracles seem rare, and those that do happen are doubted.

Again, it makes no sense to argue that God can't walk on water or perform any other sort of miracle unless people have faith in his ability to do so.

The problem with religious people in (c) isn't that they're religious, but that they're people. I don't know if there's a litmus test for how "right" religious people are compared to non-religious people. I'm not even sure what that means, but I'm willing to bet that atheists are in just as much disagreement with one another as religious people are.

There is only one issue that atheist hold to, and that is the issue of Gods non-existence, and that is an issue to which there is no disagreement, else they would not be atheists.

The great thing about Christianity is that, aside from the central tenets of the faith, we are free to be in disagreement with one another. "In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity". William Lane Craig has a wonderful visual aid for this where he explains how the doctrines and tenets of the faith can be looked at as a web, with the essential tenets naturally in the center...and how those tenets become less essential as we move away from the center towards the periphery. I was raised in a cult that taught that Christianity was a hopeless mess of denominational disharmony that proved that it was false. One of the most astonishing things I discovered upon becoming a Christian was just how united in so many essential areas Christianity actually was, and reading the early Church Fathers only continued to impress that upon me. I honestly think that a lot of people who were raised Christian sometimes take how united we are in so many areas for granted. Should we strive for more ecumencism? Absolutely, but the situation is far from hopeless, and one day Christ will personally lead us back into perfect unity.

Of course, there is only one bible, but disharmony of interpretation doesn't make the bible itself either true or false.

(d) is just part of the problem of evil argument. It has a number of answers shared with the usual rebuttal to the PoE. William Lane Craig and Paul Copan take that stance that natural disasters are simply the expected results of a universe operating according to natural laws, and that these laws were established with the purpose of maximizing God's purpose for human creation. Others point out that nature is reeling from the presence of sin in the world, and that Satan is still the god of this world, and looks for any way that he can to steal, kill, and destroy.

Silly. If they are gods laws, then calling them natural laws doesn't change anything, God would still be responsible for natural disasters, and if Satan, -(how silly)- then God again would still be ultimately responsible.

(e) is only an issue for a God with limited resources and limited time. Again, Craig puts it beautifully when he states, "This whole model of God as the engineer who has to marshal his resources and use them only in the most efficient way is...just a very defective understanding of who God is, who, I think, is probably more like the artist who enjoys creating a beautifully fine-tuned universe."

Not clear what issue this is you are speaking of, so can't really comment on it.

This presentation isn't very novel. Most of these issues have been discussed in apologetic circles for ages. I do think Wall underestimated Starlight though. Starlight is dishonest, vain, morally jacked, and has about as bad a memory as he does reading comprehension, but he's not an idiot. He's spent enough time in his little anti-Christian echo chambers to memorize all of the standard skeptical arguments. I also think Wall's historical argument, while having merit once someone already accepts the existence of the divine, and the miraculous, carries less weight to an out and out atheist/agnostic. Natural theology is probably the better way to go when dealing with someone who doesn't even believe in God.

Yes, if you have the miraculous and the devine already set in your mind as a true belief, then you will be much more likely to accept the the book upon which your belief is based as true history.

[Adrift]

The most people who would come do so, or all people who would come, do so?

The most people are all the people who would come to do so.

What differentiates those who would come and did so, from those who would come, but didn't.

Free will choice. I'm not really interested in debating the subject, but Craig gets into it in the link I provided if you're sincerely curious.

I don't think this definition of your argument makes sense.

1.) That isn't a definition. 2.) I didn't make an argument. 3.) It's not my argument, it's Dr. William Lane Craig's.

Again, it makes no sense to argue that God can't walk on water or perform any other sort of miracle unless people have faith in his ability to do so.

Jim, I'm not at all interested in trying to convince you of anything. You're demonstrated for years that your mind is absolutely locked to anything to do with Christianity and belief in God. I know that. You know that. So if it doesn't make sense to you, then I'm not terribly worried about it. In case you're curious though Matthew 14:30-31 does get into the faith aspect of that miracle.

There is only one issue that atheist hold to, and that is the issue of Gods non-existence, and that is an issue to which there is no disagreement, else they would not be atheists.

Don't tell me. Tell your friends over at Atheism+ and American Atheists.

Of course, there is only one bible, but disharmony of interpretation doesn't make the bible itself either true or false.

Um, Ok. I agree?

Silly. If they are gods laws, then calling them natural laws doesn't change anything,God would still be responsible for natural disasters,

I don't know anyone who said that calling them "natural laws" changes anything. It appears you've missed the point entirely. Which is fine. Not like it was unexpected.

and if Satan, -(how silly)- then God again would still be ultimately responsible.

Not necessarily, but I realize you've got your mind made up on the subject. I'm certain we've had discussions on God's knowledge of free will actions vs. his responsibility for free will actions dozens of times in the past over the years.

Not clear what issue this is you are speaking of, so can't really comment on it.

That's ok. I wasn't talking to you anyways.

Yes, if you have the miraculous and the devine already set in your mind as a true belief, then you will be much more likely to accept the the book upon which your belief is based as true history.

[Tassman]

He had to give palentologists something to do.

Perhaps he was leaving it to the palaeontologists. He certainly didn't inform the authors of the Genesis Creation narratives about the dinosaurs or the five great extinctions that preceded Adam and Eve. There's nary a reference to them.

[Starlight]

He had to give palentologists something to do.

"...fake fossil bones put there by a Creator with nothing better to do than upset archeologists and give them silly ideas." - Terry Pratchett, The Light Fantastic, both mocking religion in our world and describing what is actually the case on his fictional parody world (that's a disc that floats through space on the back of a turtle with the oceans continuously pouring off the edge).

You may be forgiven for thinking this way due to exposure to nothing more than certain Protestant beliefs, but Christianity is about all of creation, not just man.

Says the guy who fell over laughing the other day because I mentioned aliens in a thought experiment?

[Starlight]

Starlight does present a logical and coherent argument

Why thank you good sir.

I've never seen that kind of presentation anywhere before.

The argument is just something I wrote off the top of my head when The Wall asked me what I thought the strongest argument was. I can't think of seeing it anywhere else before. But I would say that most atheists reason to themselves along similar lines: They are atheists because they see no evidence for a deity. In that sense all that is novel about the OP argument is that I thought for 5 minutes about what ways in which a person could reasonably expect a world with a deity to look different to a world without one, and obviously for any criteria I could think of, our world matches better to a world without a deity. Or to put it another way, atheism seems to explain the observed facts, while religious claims both themselves lack evidence and also make general predictions that run counter to the observed facts.

I note that after I posted the OP, Apologiaphoenix didn't think much of it and continued (in the Screwballs discussion that spawned this thread) mocking both me and the posted argument:

If there are years and studies, then why it is that I see the exact same arguments I see from your usual run of the mill internet atheist? Sorry, but it looks like many atheists, you have a Dunning-Kruger case where you just can't seem to accept that your arguments are nothing special and nothing brilliant at all.

So I guess the OP argument is somewhere on the continuum between an entirely original composition of my own, and "the exact same arguments I see from your usual run of the mill internet atheist"...

[One Bad Pig]

Says the guy who fell over laughing the other day because I mentioned aliens in a thought experiment?

Non sequitur much?