David Bentley Hart - Atheism's Best Arguments?

Atheism fields two kinds of arguments denying the existence of God: arguments that refute so-called 'proofs' of God's existence and arguments that affirmatively support the truth claims of atheism. This first seeks weaknesses or fallacies in pro-God arguments; the second seeks to show why atheism alone makes sense. Different atheists offer different arguments.

[ciaradunne]

I was an atheist for a very long time. Despite my atheism I always felt very drawn to spirituality and the religious way of life, though I was never intellectually convinced by theistic arguments until I discovered Mr Hart, who has opened my mind to a new way of reasoning I would have dismissed out of hand in my youth. Thank you for the video!

[bquimby]

"It's the one argument I never pretend can be swept away or defeated. It's the one for which I hold the greatest respect, and the one I find intermittently convincing, myself."

[DavidFraser]

Atheism doesn't need a good argument, although there are plenty, and I don't care whether this chap likes them or not. It's up to people who believe in any of the myriad of gods to convince non believers that their deities exist.

[late]

This man is one of the few apologists that isn't obnoxious, constantly lying or using strawmen against scientific facts and atheists.

[timeparty]

A gobbledegook word salad ! ... what nonsense.

[jpielemeierpianist]

What he is saying about the universality of a sense and story of fallenness among different religious traditions and creation myths is actually very intriguing, more so than the dismissive anti-religious comments give credit for in this comment section.

[KonradZielinski]

There are no arguments for atheism because atheism makes no claims. Atheism is the rejection of the claim that any gods exist.

[theamalgamut]

5 minutes of absolutely nothing. Wow. Like only theists can deliver.

[sledzeppelin]

And their record remains unbroken. Still, I have never seen an apologist who makes anything even remotely resembling a convincing, sound argument. Even the theists and apologists who are touted as the best and brightest are still utterly ridiculous in what they try to argue. If you keep them talking long enough, it always boils down to "I just really want it to be true."

[bonnieuk]

I have to take issue with Daniel Bentley Harts attack on atheism, and his misrepresentation of Richard Dawkins answer to our existence. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, it explains how life diversified once it began, .. Richard Dawkins is honest enough to admit we don't yet know how life began... that question is probably one of the hardest and most difficult questions to answer... we as humans are still trying to figure that one out. And we have a very rational answer as to why mankind suffers.. we are living on a planet that doesn't know we exist, and it has many things which are incompatible with our existence, from microscopic living cancers which feed on our bodies, to huge hurricanes and earthquakes which kill us in our thousands sometimes. That isn't a mystery to us. But Christianity struggles to come up with a rational answer as to why bad things happen to good people. At least DBHart acknowledged that to his credit.

[muhammadhassanaliiqbal]

Don't say the argument of evil, don't say the argument of evil, don't say the argument of evil, don't say the argument of

Crap

[georgedoyle]

⁠

As an agnostic I’ve actually utilised a very pragmatic scientific probability scale of 1 - 7 thats very affective!!

(1) is total conviction that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism and (Darwins tree/abiogenesis) is absolutely true and coherent as a theory of our ultimate origins and (7) is total conviction that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism and (Darwins tree, abiogenesis) is clearly an artefact and is internally contradictory and incoherent.

I’d put the chances of atheism and (Darwins tree or even worse abiogenesis) being true at a (6.5) on the probability scale. And I would be a (6.5) with the claim that fairies and leprechauns exist!!

That is I’d put the MYTH that a cosmic accident, the MYTH that an ultimately meaningless, blind, mindless, random cosmic toss of a coin, the MYTH that the random accidental arrangement of the magical cosmic tea leaves at the bottom of the atheists morning cup of tea created Truth itself, that is value, oughts and the prescriptive laws of logic at a probability score of 6.5 and I would be a 6.5 with myths such as fairies and Leprechauns.

The MYTH that you can appeal to conscious agents and free will, that is appeal to rational decision making itself and morals and ethics whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS THE GREATEST SECULAR FAIRYTALE EVER TOLD!! It’s synonymous with the belief in magical fairies and pink fluffy Irish Leprechauns!!

Sorry but I’m biased against beliefs that are synonymous with the belief in MAGIC!! I tend to doubt that they are rational!!

Does any atheist in the comments section have actual evidence or not that magic is real? I’ll wait!!

[JacksonEverley-fm]

Hall Melissa Davis Sharon Lopez George

[ganshrio]

Rabbi yeshua ben yosef would not even want to be near this man let alone understand him.

[TheseNuts]

Casual shifting the burden. People don't have to show fairies don't exist or propose arguments against fairies.

[sledzeppelin]

Neither of these men defined evil, so their discussion about evil is useless.

[heavymeddle]

There surely are a lot of bad arguments for Atheism but there are absolutely no good arguments for theism. It's a fantasy. Theists knows what God wants but can't even show that he exists in the first place

[JaimeCastro-pobk]

Dr. John MacArthur does a better job at explaining this issue.

[benf]

My conclusion is that love requires vulnerability which then leaves the door open for evil. Evil must be allowed so that love can exist. If you prevent evil then you remove vulnerability and thereby eliminate love.
Think of it like this: If everything about you were perfectly complete and sufficient and protected from harm then there is nothing anyone could do to love you. It's our ability to be harmed that makes love valuable, at least in this world. I think God has a greater plan in the next age, but as of now, this is how it seems to be.

[davidlara]

No one single atheist philosophers takes seriously Dawkins, as he simply doesn´t understand simple notions. You cannot try to make a book whose best question is "what created God"?
In think, then, that it would make sense for theists not to take him even into the cathegory of a philosopher, as he is not.