Second Wave of Modern Atheism

 https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2014/03/libertarians-and-religion.html Does God underwrite our freedom, or undermine it? Look at Leviticus where there's numerous victimless laws being classified as sins. Look at the New Testament where Jesus defends Mosaic law while being a cult leader. There are thousands of self-styled “libertarians” who would argue the latter. They actively oppose the religious commitments of most social conservatives, many of them convinced that materialism is the best metaphysical home for what we might call “libertarian values”—individual rights, freedom and personal responsibility, reason, and moral realism. Yeah, because physicalism entails looking at the world as it is and noticing that much of the laws that people espouse are based on some type of incongruety. Ignoring that people are individuals with no real debt to each other and no real hive mind linking them, trying to say that people are responsible for the actions of others, be it gun contro...

 Not only must something perfect exist for some debt, because reasons, but this perfection needs to be a deity instead of raw potential like a stem cell.

 Somehow, eternalism is false and there needs to be a first cause. Somehow, this first cause isn't something similar to forces, energies, or matter already known to exist but something new entirely. Somehow, this entirely new thing is specifically divine rather than simply metaphysical in a more mundane way. Somehow, this divinity is sentient. Somehow, this divinity had enough power to make the world and retain itself instead of just making itself into the world (pantheism) because "it's already powerful so let's just say it can do whatever it wants". Somehow, this deity has actual intentions to get itself involved in humanity rather than just making it's own ant farm. Somehow, this deity is the specific deity from their religion because their religion somehow monopolized spirituality. To give the Christians credit, they don't add in numerous deities when one would do the job, but at the same time they add in a court of angels fighting rebellious angels ca...

 A God of forgiveness throws out his children because they ate the fruit of knowledge and couldn't be immortal anymore, because in spite of them being immortal alone and not omnipotent, they were somehow to close to Godhood. This is dumb not only because God could've had intelligent children making moral decisions instead of just blindly obeying him, but he is the creator of all things, nothing to miraculous for him https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/32-27.htm https://biblehub.com/genesis/18-14.htm https://biblehub.com/matthew/19-26.htm Would it not be too hard to wipe their minds and give them a lesser punishment? Especially since he can turn Lot's wife into salt for looking at her home one last time before God destroyed the town instead of just the people. Additionally, this is looking into the book itself rather than the real world. There's no absolute evidence of a deity, the most being something weird that Creationists try to fashion into a divinity explicitly. Essentia...

"The universe is improbable, so you should allow other improbable things to exist." The improbable existence of miracles is at best theoretical, the vast majority of the time they are explained by human flawed thinking, whereas the universe can be demonstrated, opposed only by mere lack of realistic chance rather than an actual prohibition to be divinely surmounted. Improbability, no matter how improbable, isn't impossible. There is no need to add in divinity when discussing the existence of the universe as improbable. Conversely, we don't have to give credence to improbable miracles because, as stated earlier, they are too rare to be routinely demonstrated, with there being far more cases of human error. And this is assuming we even need to describe them as magic or divine instead of quantum weirdness. https://www.reddit.com/r/RationalRight/comments/1cavkwr/appeal_to_probability_is_only_a_problem_when/

 https://shenviapologetics.com/science-and-religion-part-iv/ In general, attempts to "combine religion and science" are basically just looking at alleged holes in science, and then asserting that, instead of using philosophy, we just regurgitate religion and shoehorn it. Shenvi might try to make a point here on in his other articles, but I doubt he succeeds. First, let’s consider the mathematical structure of the universe itself. Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner wrote a very famous paper entitled “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” [Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 13, No. I (1960)] in which he observes that the remarkable success of mathematics in describing the physical world is actually very surprising. Mathematics He repeatedly uses the words miracle and miraculous to describe this phenomenon. After all, it is not metaphysically necessary that the universe is the way it is. We could conceive of a universe that was wholly...

 The Great God Paradox is when creationists try to argue for the existence of a deity that's omnipotent, but when faced with skepticism, can only defend the position by making appeals to ignorance, looking for vague things to defend the notion, or otherwise using tenuous points to defend the existence of a strong deity. Essentially, a great God is displayed solely by weakness. Examples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN00T-KS88I General "science was wrong before, you don't know everything" type of stuff. https://youtu.be/vOJTxk5sD80?si=89l-68hP-xt6xNnX&t=2214 Basically tries to say an omnipotent god can only be logical because the rules of science also so. Instead of going the standard route of omnipotence, tries to say that a god works through quantum mechanics. Bit of a cop out, definitely trying to shoehorn a deity into something existing without one. https://evangelism.intervarsity.org/resource/there-no-hard-evidence-god-exists#:~:text=Just%20because%20you,Go...

 I have long maintained that the Argument from First Cause is satisfied by something more analogous to a force like gravity and electromagnetism. In my ignorance, I thought these forces were solid entities rather than interactions, the warping and curvature of space-time (Gravity), or the result of electromagnetic fields (electromagnetism).  However, when you are given to false ideas (my view of the first cause being a force, and the theistic view of it being a force with divinity [which it would have to distinctly be unless they want to broaden the definition of God to "anything considered weird through an anthropocentric lens"], let alone a vaguely human one), it would be best to not choose one of the two but discard both. And I shall. My new explanation is an x-substance that can be called Formation. Credit to the theists, this is also speculative, however, it is not convoluted, and as such doesn't stretch the need for an answer into a free reign "anything goes...

 https://www.solas-cpc.org/what-to-say-when-someone-asks-for-proof-of-gods-existence/ “There isn’t enough evidence.” It seems so reasonable. It’s what any sensible person would ask. Where is the evidence? Why should it be so difficult to believe in Christ? Probably because you hitched your wagon on a dead Jew that other Jews disown. Now to set snark aside Hard core atheism, the belief that there is no God (anti-theism), is difficult to defend 1. Anti-theism isn't the mere lack of belief in a deity, it's the active hatred of the idea of a deity. They aren't the same, being conflated because it's the natural conclusion to oppose a deity in a world where the vast majority of those who support the God Hypothesis aren't sensible or reserved like deists, but religious people who want to use this deity as a way of asserting their moral beliefs on other people, at best guilt tripping family members with paranoia about hell. 2. The atheist position is rather easy to defend. ...