There are theistic arguments we have all come across now and again which we know are wrong, but find it impossible to respond to. Anyone care to present them in hope of an answer?

The one that always gets me, is the fact that by using logic to back up my use of logic I'm creating a circular argument, and, similarly, by using the evidence of efficacy to support the empirical method. How would one answer that in a way a theist would understand? I can't think of a single thing.

Views: 231

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's hard to argue with someone that's shut their mind down. Most xians I know don't even want to talk about the possibility of anything outside of their little black book. You either get into little circular arguments that boil down to "god did it" or they fall back on ad hominem attacks and then ignore anything else you have to say. Until they get past the brainwashing stage of religion there really is no way to talk to most of them. I've got a very good friend that's a devout baptist. He believes in evolution as long as he can add that it's the way god intended it to be. But he refuses to even open a book or look at an article that may make him question his faith. I asked him why he was so bound to a 2000 year old lie. He said that without jesus he would not be able to cope with the world and would have no place to go after he died. He is honestly sincerely scared about the whole "why are we here and what happens when we die" that he refuses to look at any alternatives.
Have you tried disguising atheist texts as Christian magazines? :D Poe's law!
This is why you fist have to start by discrediting the bible, knowledge of history and archeology is important here, as well as knowledge of the bible. This is the toughest thing to overcome, but once you can start getting them to agree to any concessions the house of cards starts to fall. With Christians you need to establish what form of christianity they follow. I usually can establish this with a simple inquiry about the new testament. Does the New Testament absolve the followers of Christ from following the laws of the Old Testament. Many Christians will respond in the positive, then you can attack the fallibility of the deity. if "no" then you can nail them on all the old testament hooey.
The issue is not us using circular arguments because we can always welcome new information which will alter the discussion's outcome, the issue is that Nazi Christians are so stuck up with god and the bible being so unique they cannot comprehend otherwise. It turns out to be but that's science but bible is the bible arguments.

It's always but the word of the bible are gods word's therefore they must be taken literary and "only I can understand god, bible and everything correctly".

If they are so determined they are right no point bothering. The only one ending up frustrated is you sadly. Ofc it doesn't hurt to try but in my past experience there are 2 types: people who are forever stuck up and people who are willing to think otherwise as long you provide with necessary facts to back up your arguments.
Yeah, there is often little point to "bothering" and open debate is tough, I prefer a more conversational approach which plants the seed of doubt, so to speak in order to get the "believer" to begin to look at their faith a bit more objectively. I was fortunate to be raised without much faith so I tend to see religions as an outsider, looking in.

An objective approach to religion makes it look even more ridiculous...
You're not using logic to back up your logic, you're simply using logic. Period. Logic based on observation of the real world, what really happens. You might ask the theist what the alternative is. Using illogic...using fantasy...using trickery...using an ancient manuscript of dubious origin?

Imagine that you drop a vase. It falls to the floor and shatters. From now on, you'd be wise to base your behaviors on this simple observation, or you'll have a lot of shattered vases. On the other hand, if you believe, based on the teachings of an ancient manuscript, that the vase will never really fall, then you've made a serious error.

We must all base our behaviors on what really happens, or else we could never get through each day alive. There is nothing circular about that.
Exactly, although to the faithful they have behaviors based upon things that don't really happen. They'll tell you they've had prayers that have been answered, but it's selective memory, not acknowledging all the times they prayed and it didn't happen. Correlation is not causation, but this is a scientific fundamental they don't seem to get.
If I debate a theist, my problem isn't developing a response to an argument. My problem is that theists have no interest in arguments. They have no interest in hearing ideas I might have. They are interested only in bible quoting, name calling, and finger pointing. It's the finger in the face that really gets me. How can one respond but to walk away?
I'll definitely agree with you on that point, to the faithful their stance in unassailable, but for most rational thinkers no position is unassailable, to engage in an honest argument participants must first accept that their position is one that is vulnerable to argument, those with absolute faith will never accept those terms. If you present evidence that contradicts them, then it is the evidence that is wrong, not them.
Okay, folks, we've established that the theist's objection to logic is not a valid question, despite it being impossible to prove this to the theist without using the very thing they object to. Here's another conundrum.

In using the Problem of Pain argument against theists, I've just come across a guy who is totally convinced of this:
"To say that the only way he could exist is if he contradicted his moral code assumes that if God and the contradition of his moral code coexist then he is the one responsible. That is not a necessary presupposition. Does good exist? Yes. Does evil exist? Yes. But, if good exists at the same time as evil, good must not be perfectly good or it would eliminate evil. That last sentence is obviously bogus, there is nothing to presuppose that something cannot exist in the presence of its opposite. So, it is possible for a perfectly good being (God) to coexist with evil. Your beef is that if he exists, why isn't he doing anything about the evil, which is an entirely different question than can he coexist with evil. I will try to answer the above in a moment."

He is arguing that if I am right, then there's no standard of justice to measure God by. I've explained to him several times this is just not good logic, since I am not arguing about God if I am right--but I am struggling over a concise way to explain this to him. He misses the point every time. Can anyone explain what is wrong with this view in a clearer and more concise example than I've been able to?

Help appreciated. Answers here or to, home of awkward questions from theists :/
It is also interesting to note that evil itself is a very subjective matter. While there are certain agreeable things we would consider evil (killing, rape, stealing) they are still justified in certain cases, maybe with the exception of rape, where I would have huge issues to ever see any valid argument for, or at least an argument which would actually could excuse the rapist. There is only one which I could think of, judicale conditionalis, ie outside circumstances such as being mentally ill.

However, in the case of killing, we can always use "protected oneself" argument or in the case of stealing, "for one's survival". Isn't stealing justified in the story Alladin? He even lives in a Muslim country where stealing otherwise would end with getting his hands cut off, such as is adviced in the Shariah.
Of course, but we can always refute to certain branches in Christanity where god is passive. It doesn't foretell so in the bible though.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service