Atheos Dialogue: One True Religion

My religion is the one true religion. The others are wrong.

Select an ideal response for:

I want you to join my religion, which is the one true religion.

If your religion is the one true religion, it would certainly be worth joining. Why do you think this is the case?

Thank you for your invitation. What makes your religion true?

No thanks, I'm not interested in joining a religion.

No thanks, the evidence for your religion is very bad.

Select an ideal response for:

I believe this due to faith and/or some subjective evidence.

People of various religions also believe due to subjective evidence. Exclusivity cannot be reasonably argued for.

Utilizing subjective evidence doesn't lead to truth.

People of various religions also believe on faith. Not only is this subjective, but exclusivity cannot be reasonably argued for.

Believing on faith doesn't lead to truth.

Select an ideal response for:

True. However, I also believe due to the objective evidence.

Yes. Religious exclusivism can only be justified by objective evidence. Is there anything you can use to demonstrate your religion?

That's good, as only objective evidence can justify religious exclusivism. What is your evidence for your religion?

There is no objective evidence for your religion.

Religion isn't about evidence or belief.

Select an ideal response for:

The empirical evidence for God is all around us.

What evidence? There does not appear to be any direct, empirical evidence for God's existence.

That evidence is indirect & allows for numerous religious & non-religious interpretations.

That isn't evidence.

There is no empirical evidence for God's existence.

Select an ideal response for:

Fair enough. There are also good philosophical arguments for God's existence (Kalām, fine-tuning, moral, etc).

These arguments are logically invalid and/or unsound, relying on controversial premises.

The conclusions of these arguments are wrong.

The premises of these arguments are false.

Shouldn't the realization that your position is built on an unsupportive footing be concerning?

Select an ideal response for:

False. I have directly seen & heard God.

That's what xxx (insert an objectionable character here) thought.

Such experiences are often caused by substance abuse or mental illness.

These arguments are controversial, even among many believers. Yet you still accept it. Why?

Wow. That's fascinating. How did you come to the conclusion that it was God you heard?

Select an ideal response for:

You make a good point. But William Lane Craig (or some other sophisticated apologist) finds them convincing & so do I.

Even if basically correct, these arguments don't necessarily lead to theism.

They aren't convincing. You need to do more research.

William Lane Craig isn't a very respected philosopher.

These arguments allow for numerous natural & supernatural alternatives.

Select an ideal response for:

What alternatives are there?

There could be a separate creator, designer, etc. Or they all may point to a deistic or pantheistic God.

Determinism, chance, advanced humans or extraterrestrials can align with the arguments' conclusions, explaining the indirect evidence.

There are heaps of alternatives.

You're just appealing to ignorance.

Select an ideal response for:

Those natural alternatives are all very improbable.

Respected scientists disagree.

This hasn't been determined. In fact, as these are natural explanations, they are already more probable than supernatural explanations.

No more improbable than theism.

Incorrect. Supernatural alternatives rely on many more assumptions that haven't been evidentially justified.

Select an ideal response for:

Those supernatural alternatives are all very improbable.

Yes, all supernatural alternatives are.

This is arguable & may be irrelevant, due to the sheer number of alternatives. Just think of the number of possible polytheisms.

This hasn't been determined. In fact, many of these alternatives are actually more plausible, by better explaining the evidence.

No more improbable than theism.

Select an ideal response for:

Fine. But there's also good historical evidence for the truth of Christianity.

That's doubtful, due to the many improbable claims made by early Christians.

Historical arguments for Christianity all fail as Christian claims are inherently improbable.

No there isn't.

This evidence is no better than for other religions.

Select an ideal response for:

But these claims could be true, right? Improbable doesn't mean impossible!

The issue isn't whether such claims are possible, but whether they are probably true. Without God, that's hard to argue.

The issue isn't whether such claims are possible, but whether they are probably true. Without reliable sources, that's hard to argue.

Miracles just don't happen.

No they couldn't be true. They are impossible.

Select an ideal response for:

Well God exists.

We have seen that the evidence for (your specific) God considered so far is poor. Your only recourse is highly suspect sources.

That hasn't been demonstrated & isn't accepted by secular historians. Your only recourse is extremely unreliable sources.

Prove it.

No he doesn't.

Select an ideal response for:

The historical sources concerning Jesus are highly reliable.

The sources are generally taken to be sufficient in arguing for a Historical Jesus, but not for the miraculous Christ of Faith.

Only Christians take the Bible seriously.

The sources are non-contemporary & aren't from eyewitnesses. There are many other problems with them.

There are no relevant historical sources.

Select an ideal response for:

I guess there really is no good objective evidence. I suppose I believe on faith, after all.

Thanks. And do be careful of committing idolatry, as your faith may lead you to the God you prefer, rather than the God that actually exists.

Believing on faith doesn't lead you to truth.

I'm glad you acknowledge that. Do you think this discussion might help a person reconsider their stance in some way?

You shouldn't believe at all.