# SDMB Atheists..point me in the direction of the most convincing arguments for Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 9, 2007, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403 "2007-12-09T19:05:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/121 "2007-12-11T21:33:18Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Conceded that your use of arguments might differ from the OP, but even so, isn’t it still inaccurate to say that if the theist understands his reasons for rejecting Thor, that he’ll under stand your reasons for rejecting his god? Talk to a Christian long enough about why s/he rejects Thor, and sooner or later, the words “immorality” and “backwards” and “uncivilized” are bound to come up. Those, too, are reasons that I reject the Abrahamic God. So, in a word, yes. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/122 "2007-12-11T21:52:16Z")
[QUOTE=Hostile Dialect] Talk to a Christian long enough about why s/he rejects Thor, and sooner or later, the words “immorality” and “backwards” and “uncivilized” are bound to come up. Those, too, are reasons that I reject the Abrahamic God. So, in a word, yes. [/QUOTE] And it would be equally accurate to say that the reason non-smokers don’t smoke is that they don’t like the flavor of particular brands of cigarettes. Which is to say, it’s not accurate at all for _most_ atheists, even if the only reason _you_ don’t believe is that you haven’t found a sky-pixie to your taste yet. I suppose if you’re hell-bent on defending that quip, then I can’t stop you. I think I have made my point about the reason _I_ think it’s both inaccurate and ineffective, so I’m done arguing with you about it. ---
**Author:** ![Jesticulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Jesticulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jesticulator)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/123 "2007-12-11T23:02:29Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Pretty much. [/quote] Okay, please point out where I claimed that “it amounts to a positive assertion about the non-existence of God.” > [@](#): > > Demanding that the atheist define your hypothesis is logical nonsense. I see. _My_ hypothesis? According to you, what is my hypothesis and where did I state it? > [@](#): > > I’m saying that anyone can ask what the difference is between two things. So, it’s a ploy to get the other person to start the argument so that he has the burden of proof. Cute. How about this: Within the context of a debate on the existence of god, you ask a theist: Do you believe in Santa Claus? And the the theist responds with: What is the relevance of Santa Claus in a debate on the existence of God? What would your next comment be? > [@](#): > > No, these are statements of fact. I see. Are these statements of fact falsfiable? > [@](#): > > This is true, Take a theology or a philosophy class. Or a science class. Your condescension is unbecoming of a rational debater. > [@](#): > > All you’re really doing is flaunting your own ignorance of some extremely well worn debates. I see. So, your statement: > [@](#): > > As a matter of fact, it is fairly easy to rebut all the classical proofs of God and anyone trained in theology or the clergy already knows all the rebuttals. is beyond dispute. Is that what you’re saying? What if someone trained in theology or the clergy didn’t know all the rebuttals, would you then argue that they weren’t trained in theology or the clergy? What if they said that it was “fairly easy to rebut all the classical proofs of God”? Would that still mean that your statement is true? Who decides what is “fairly easy?” > [@](#): > > There are three classical proofs … Spare me. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > The rebuttals just show that the proofs fail to prove anything) but if you’re aware of an argument which you think is especially effective, let me know what it is and I’ll be happy to show you why it fails miserably. I don’t care if it fails miserably. You didn’t claim that all classical proofs of God fail miserably. You claimed that it is “fairly easy to rebut” them, **and** , you claimed that “\*anyone \* trained in theology or the clergy already knows \*all \* the rebuttals.” You have not provided any evidence for your claim. > [@](#): > > Where should I start? You could start by being less condescending. ---
**Author:** ![Jesticulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Jesticulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jesticulator)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2007, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/124 "2007-12-11T23:07:19Z")
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion] Perhaps \*\*Jesticulator \*\* can educate himself there before asking people around here to give him a crash course in Philosophy of Religion 101. [/QUOTE] What is the relevance of your snide remark? I did not I ask “people around here to give [me] a crash course in Philosophy of Religion 101.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/125 "2007-12-12T00:07:47Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] Okay, please point out where I claimed that “it amounts to a positive assertion about the non-existence of God.” [/quote] When you erroneously claimed that the atheist had any burden to prove that the beliefs were equal. > [@](#): > > I see. _My_ hypothesis? According to you, what is my hypothesis and where did I state it? I meant “you” in a generic sense and the hypothesis (obviously) is the God hypothesis. > [@](#): > > So, it’s a ploy to get the other person to start the argument so that he has the burden of proof. Cute. I see you’re really struggling with this logic stuff. No it’s not a ploy, it’s a response to an assertion which has already been made. > [@](#): > > How about this: Within the context of a debate on the existence of god, you ask a theist: Do you believe in Santa Claus? > And the the theist responds with: What is the relevance of Santa Claus in a debate on the existence of God? > What would your next comment be? It’s an analogy. Analogies are common in rational debates. > [@](#): > > I see. Are these statements of fact falsfiable? Yes. > [@](#): > > Your condescension is unbecoming of a rational debater. All I did was answer your question and provide you with information. If you feel cndescended to, that’s your problem. If you don’t want answers, don’t ask questions. > [@](#): > > I see. So, your statement:is beyond dispute. Is that what you’re saying? Yes, that’s what I’m saying. It’s not breaking news. > [@](#): > > What if someone trained in theology or the clergy didn’t know all the rebuttals, would you then argue that they weren’t trained in theology or the clergy? Obviously they would not be well-trained, that is correct. The classical proofs are first semester material. > [@](#): > > What if they said that it was “fairly easy to rebut all the classical proofs of God”? Would that still mean that your statement is true? That IS my statement. Is that what you meant to say? > [@](#): > > Who decides what is “fairly easy?” Pretty much anyone who’s ever tried to rebut them. If you had any education in the area, you would know that. > [@](#): > > Spare me. :rolleyes: I don’t care if it fails miserably. You didn’t claim that all classical proofs of God fail miserably. You claimed that it is “fairly easy to rebut” them Do you think there’s a difference between those two statements? They all fail miserably BECAUSE they are so easy to rebut. > [@](#): > > , **and** , you claimed that “\*anyone \* trained in theology or the clergy already knows \*all \* the rebuttals.” They do. > [@](#): > > You have not provided any evidence for your claim. What would you accept as evidence for the claim? You’re actually disputing that the classical proofs (along with their rebuttals) are routine part of philosophical and theological curriculums. I got it both in Philosophy 101 and in a 1st year theology class. You are really getting desperate here. Ask a priest, take a class, Crack a textbook. > [@](#): > > You could start by being less condescending. This is evasive. Do you want to hear the rebuttals to the classical proofs or don’t you? If so, which ones? Frankly, this isn’t something I should have to educate you about. If you want to be taken seriously, you should already know this stuff. I think you may be in just a wee bit over your head. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/126 "2007-12-12T00:09:50Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] What is the relevance of your snide remark? I did not I ask “people around here to give [me] a crash course in Philosophy of Religion 101.” [/QUOTE] Actually, that’s exactly what you did. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/127 "2007-12-12T00:21:02Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Is this an irrational argument? By all means, point out the flaw. How about this statement: > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > My point is the rebuttals being made by atheists are only (indeed can only) be in response to claims made by theists. So, an atheist cannot make a rebuttal in response to a claim made by an another atheist? Hmmm … :dubious: [/quote] I don’t understand your point. > [@](#): > > It seems that you (and **Czarcasm** , and \*\*Diogenes \*\*) think that anyone who disagrees with an atheist must be a theist. There are any number of things atheists can disagree about among themselves, including politics, sports teams, film interpretation and even religion itself but I thought we were talking about theism and how to respond to arguments used by theists. In the interest of efficiency, I think I’ll concentrate on _those_ disputes rather than go wandering afield. > [@](#): > > And, I’ll state a simple fact: Atheists are making claims in this thread. > Not necessarily claims about god-belief, but claims nevertheless. Those claims come with a burden of proof. That’s all. Could you be so kind as to name the three atheist claims you find most unsupportable? I’ll cheerfully analyze all of them. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/128 "2007-12-12T00:35:17Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] I don’t understand your point. [/QUOTE] He was nitpicking the heck out of your statement; attacking you for sheer wordplay as if you ment exclusion by omission. If a person does this sort of thing it generally means that they don’t have any _substantative_ arguments left to make, and are just arguing because they can’t stand to admit defeat. And as for atheists disagreeing, I (an atheist) have to say that I think that **Diogenes** was waxing a _wee_ bit hyperbolic when he said that _all_ well-trained religious leaders know the arguments. (And by “hyperbolic” I mean “No True Scotsman”.) This is not to say that him having exaggerated this statement would help **Jesticulator** ’s position, except in a ‘gotcha gotcha nyah nyah nyah’ sort of way; even if the literal truth of **Diogenes** ’s blanket statement is disproven, it was just part of a response to a pointless snark by **Jesticulator** and has nothing to do with **Diogenes** ’s actual argument anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/129 "2007-12-12T00:43:02Z")
Well, I could buy that the “big three” pro-God arguments are standard material in theology classes, but I bet there are some especially subtle approaches that are a lot trickier and perhaps only get addressed in advanced classes. In any case, if any of them were conclusive (“three cups of flour, one tablespoon of baking powder, a cup of milk, two eggs, bake for 35 minutes = GOD!”), they’d be teaching them in science classes. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/130 "2007-12-12T01:01:24Z")
God sounds tasty. I bet Chocolate Chip God would be even better, though. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/131 "2007-12-12T01:16:18Z")
I once ran across a list of contradictions in the omni-god (things such as whether an omniscient, omnipotent God is capable of choosing to do something other than what He knows He’s gonna do, and whether an eternal God has free will, that sort of thing), but my google skills aren’t up to snuff right now. Does anyone know where I can find such a list? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Sophistry\_and\_Illusion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sophistry_and_Illusion)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/132 "2007-12-12T01:17:49Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] What is the relevance of your snide remark? I did not I ask “people around here to give [me] a crash course in Philosophy of Religion 101.” [/QUOTE] The relevance of my snide remark is that I am feeling bitchy today. My apologies. But in response to one of your comments to \*\*Dio \*\* above, yes, I would say that someone who doesn’t know the classic three arguments for God’s existence, and doesn’t know the classic counterarguments against them, is not well-trained in theology. That’s just fundamental stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Jesticulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Jesticulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jesticulator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/133 "2007-12-12T02:00:34Z")
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion] The relevance of my snide remark is that I am feeling bitchy today. My apologies. [/quote] Thank you. > [@](#): > > But in response to one of your comments to \*\*Dio \*\* above, yes, I would say that someone who doesn’t know the classic three arguments for God’s existence, and doesn’t know the classic counterarguments against them, is not well-trained in theology. That’s just fundamental stuff. But, that’s not what Diogenes said. He said: > [@](#): > > As a matter of fact, it is fairly easy to rebut all the classical proofs of God and anyone trained in theology or the clergy already knows all the rebuttals. **All** the rebuttals, not just “the classic counterarguments”. And he said “trained” not “well-trained”. Anyway, take a look at [Gödel’s Ontological Argument](http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html) and tell me whether everyone trained in theology or the clergy knows the rebuttal. (Not whether there is a rebuttal.) Or, William Lane Craig’s [Teleological Argument](http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html), which I think is easier to refute. Or his analysis of the [Kalam Cosmological Argument](http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/kalam-oppy.html). I know that there are rebuttals, but I doubt that **all** theologians and clergy would find them “fairly easy”. And I think that many fundamentalist Christian theologians would say that there are no rebuttals. My point was simply that Diogenes made an extreme claim and he made no attempt to meet the burden of proof for that claim. In any case, I addressed Diogenes’ comment because he kept bringing up “Burden of Proof” as if it applied only to claims about god-belief. And, remember, I have never claimed that God exists. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/134 "2007-12-12T02:08:31Z")
I’ll assume that the first of the three unsupportable atheist claims I requested will be Dio’s ‘all people trained in theology know the main rebuttals’. I figure this is at most hyperbole, and not even shockingly extreme hyperbole at that. Got two more? ---
**Author:** ![Jesticulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Jesticulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jesticulator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/135 "2007-12-12T02:11:01Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] I don’t understand your point. [/quote] You said: > [@](#): > > My point is the rebuttals being made by atheists are only (indeed can only) be in response to claims made by theists. It seems that you’ve excluded the possibility that an atheist could be responding to a claim by another atheist about god-belief. If not, then what did you mean by “only (indeed can only)”? I can see that you meant to say that, without the claim of _theism_, a_theism_ could not exist. But that’s not what you said. For me, it’s especially relevant because so many atheists are arguing with me as if I were a theist, when all I’m doing is disputing some of their claims. And, by “claims”, I don’t mean claims about god-belief. I mean any statement that is presented as fact, and, for purposes of this thread, especially those that I disagree with. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/136 "2007-12-12T02:12:25Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] And, remember, I have never claimed that God exists. [/QUOTE] Would you mind telling us what you _do_ claim, then? I’d like to know if we’re just spinning our wheels trying to argue you out of a position you don’t hold in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Jesticulator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/977dab/32.png) [@Jesticulator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jesticulator)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/137 "2007-12-12T02:21:02Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] I’ll assume that the first of the three unsupportable atheist claims I requested will be Dio’s ‘all people trained in theology know the main rebuttals’. I figure this is at most hyperbole, and not even shockingly extreme hyperbole at that. [/quote] No, the first is one that I quoted several times: **Chief Pedant** ’s Argument by Santa Claus. The second is **Czarcasm** ’s sarcastic response in post #50: > [@](#): > > You do have a point-they are in no way similar. Here’s one more, from post #64: > [@](#): > > Who said you don’t have a burden to prove that God exists? You have the burden BOTH to prove that God exists and to prove that a belief in God is more rational than a belief in the Easter Bunny. Go ahead and cheerfully analyze them. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/138 "2007-12-12T02:25:53Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] No, the first is one that I quoted several times: **Chief Pedant** ’s Argument by Santa Claus. The second is **Czarcasm** ’s sarcastic response in post #50:Here’s one more, from post #64:Go ahead and cheerfully analyze them. 🙂 [/QUOTE] Which side do you come down on-atheist, agnostic, or religionist? Are you arguing from conviction, or playing devil’s advocate? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/139 "2007-12-12T02:29:14Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] If not, then what did you mean by “only (indeed can only)”? I can see that you meant to say that, without the claim of _theism_, a_theism_ could not exist. But that’s not what you said. [/QUOTE] That’s not _exactly_ what I meant (or as you said, said), but it’s close enough for me to not care about the difference. I wasn’t trying to be obscure - it’s a discussion about countering theism arguments (unless I’m grossly mistaken) so I figured that was implicit. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2007, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403/140 "2007-12-12T02:37:34Z")
[QUOTE=Jesticulator] Thank you.But, that’s not what Diogenes said. He said: **All** the rebuttals, not just “the classic counterarguments”. And he said “trained” not “well-trained”. [/quote] This is childish, semantic whining. > [@](#): > > Anyway, take a look at [Gödel’s Ontological Argument](http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~cgsmall/ontology.html) and tell me whether everyone trained in theology or the clergy knows the rebuttal. (Not whether there is a rebuttal.) Everyone trained in theology knows the Ontological argument and knows the rebuttals. Granted, some training may go no deeper than Anselm but the modal formulation (which has been kicked to death on this forum) is also fairly well known and would be covered by any serious course of study. [quote] Or, William Lane Craig’s [Teleological Argument](http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/teleo.html), which I think is easier to refute. Or his analysis of the [Kalam Cosmological Argument](http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/kalam-oppy.html). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-atheists-point-me-in-the-direction-of-the-most-convincing-arguments-for-atheism/429403.md?page=8)