Stopping a religotard in their tracks

[Atheon]

The Scathing Atheist recently said this to a religiobot who tried to get him to attend their church because he was sure that his pastor would succeed in convincing him about god and jeezus where so many others failed:

"How many dicks did you have to suck before you were sure you weren't gay?"

That ended the conversation and the religiobot left.

[Desdinova]

It does make sense to the theist advocate.  The hypothetical person you talk about is hypothetical.  There is nobody in the world without "sin" (according to the theist).  Because of this, the question is nonsense.

But we could rephrase it to a very good person, and a serial murderer.  Do you guys actually think that Christians never ponder these things?  When I was a Christian I wondered about that.  The answer I got is that god can't stand to be in the presence of sin, no matter how big or small.  The fact that a serial murderer can be forgiven before he dies is a demonstration of how forgiving god can be.

so if it does make sense to the theist, what does that say about their god?  he is willing to condemn a person to eternal hell fire who was pure in all ways, yet allow a mass murderer to walk through the pearly gates.  if their god is good and loves us all, how can he condemn a pure person who was isolated and never heard the gospel?  if this makes sense to the theist, which apparently it does, we've all seen it, then these people are indeed idiots.

[Drummer Guy]

Well, if your kid is playing in traffic and you put the kid there and put the cars there, then yes, that would make you a bad parent.  And the sort of things that God is described as doing in the Bible are actually far worse than that.

What would it mean for my kid if I kept them hidden away from dangers as a kid (which I should) but then continued to do so through their adult lives?  Would they have a fulfilling life where they got to experience what this world has to offer?

Yes, I am playing a bit of a poe role here, but it's important to scrutinize your own arguments.  These types of arguments are why the term "new atheist" exists.  Its a bunch of people with an internet connection who make philosophically lazy arguments without questioning each other.  I'm just hoping through this you'll be able to sharpen up your argument.

It's a serious question that still hasn't been answered though;  How would a world function without suffering?  Would we ever die?  How would we die?  Would we have to be responsible for anything at any time?  If so, what?  What types of experiences and emotions would we never experience?  If we didn't experience things like fear, would our other positive emotions ever be as fulfilling as they are now?

I'm not claiming that I'm able to justify suffering with a loving god, but if you think you're going to stop a theist dead in their tracks with a question about it then you're mistaken.  It's easy to make a claim like "god wouldn't allow suffering" but what you need to be able to follow up with is a description of what the consequences of that kind of universe would be.  In other words, think it through more so that you have a stronger case.

[Hydra009]

Yes, I am playing a bit of a poe role here, but it's important to scrutinize your own arguments.  These types of arguments are why the term "new atheist" exists.  Its a bunch of people with an internet connection who make philosophically lazy arguments without questioning each other.  I'm just hoping through this you'll be able to sharpen up your argument.

Please tell me you're not serious.  Because that is grade A bullshit.

It's a serious question that still hasn't been answered though;  How would a world function without suffering?  Would we ever die?  How would we die?  Would we have to be responsible for anything at any time?  If so, what?  What types of experiences and emotions would we never experience?  If we didn't experience things like fear, would our other positive emotions ever be as fulfilling as they are now?

I'm not claiming that I'm able to justify suffering with a loving god, but if you think you're going to stop a theist dead in their tracks with a question about it then you're mistaken.  It's easy to make a claim like "god wouldn't allow suffering" but what you need to be able to follow up with is a description of what the consequences of that kind of universe would be.  In other words, think it through more so that you have a stronger case.

The gratuitous suffering and death in our world does not make for a fulfilling life.  If for example, AIDS did not exist, it would make life no less worth living.  And I've got to say, it's very odd to watch Christians place such value in suffering in one breath and extol their suffering-free heaven with the next.  Methinks they don't believe what they're saying and of course, neither do you.

What kind of world should a god create?  That's a pretty moot question, don't you think?  We're here, that's how it is, and we don't get a choice.

Theists, on the contrary, argue that all this is the work of a creator god who made it this way intentionally.  They shouldn't get a pass from the implications of their claim.  Nor should such criticism be dismissed out of hand as "philosophically lazy" or weak simply because it's associated with a group that you apparently don't like.

[Desdinova]

^^^  all of that

[Hydra009]

[Drummer Guy]

What kind of world should a god create?  That's a pretty moot question, don't you think?  We're here, that's how it is, and we don't get a choice.

If it's a moot question, then why do we continually tell theists that god should have created a different kind of world?

Do you really think it's a moot question?

[Drummer Guy]

My point is simply this;  Saying "Why did god let people die in the tsunami?  HAHA CHECKMATE THEISTS!!!!" is about as well thought out as "Oh ya, well how did the universe begin?  HAHA CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!!!!"

My point is that it won't stop them dead in their tracks.  Theists have thought about it, and have different perspectives and answers, even if we don't find those answers satisfactory.  I just think if we are going to try to stop them dead in their tracks we could try to come up with arguments that actually accomplish that.

[PickelledEggs]

My point is simply this;  Saying "Why did god let people die in the tsunami?  HAHA CHECKMATE THEISTS!!!!" is about as well thought out as "Oh ya, well how did the universe begin?  HAHA CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!!!!"

My point is that it won't stop them dead in their tracks.  Theists have thought about it, and have different perspectives and answers, even if we don't find those answers satisfactory.  I just think if we are going to try to stop them dead in their tracks we could try to come up with arguments that actually accomplish that.

It's not that we don't find them satisfactory, it's that they aren't satisfactory. The thing a lot of people that try to undo the stupid that religion causes do is try to instill a level of cognitive thinking that they just don't have. It's not like we're arguing over "Which is a better band? Alice in Chains or Nirvana?" (hint -- it's Alice in Chains) That argument is subjective. It's about opinion. The argument we are talking about "Is your god real?" is objective. It's about facts.

It's like asking who has more apples? Jake? or Fred? Fred has 7 and Jake has 10. Which is more? We, the nonbelievers know that it's Jake that has more apples. Theists will say it's Fred because either "they don't know, therefore Jake", or "Jake has extra apples. It doesn't say anywhere in the math problem... and Jake doesn't know about any extra apples, only the 7 apples he has... but I know Jake has more apples. I can FEEL it."

[Minimalist]

I think a .357  magnum would stop them cold....especially if you put the bullet right between their eyes.

[PickelledEggs]

I think a .357  magnum would stop them cold....especially if you put the bullet right between their eyes.

That wouldn't work. The theist with the bullet in his head would be called a martyr for his beliefs and the shooter would be sent to jail for hate crime. Aside from a pointless death, it would only be a backlash for the atheist community.

P.S. Don't pretend it's funny to shoot theists... or anyone for that matter.

[Altered Atheist]

Gawd doesn't work in mysterious ways, Gawd just punches them in the face.

Ort just orders up a flood and kills everybody!

[the_antithesis]

"What's a god?"

[doorknob]

  this is where you're missing the point.  What would a world be like with no responsibility?  I wouldn't need to worry about working, we wouldn't need to farm/grow food.  We wouldn't need to do anything because all of our basic needs would be miraculously taken care of.  How can anybody grow as a person and really enjoy all aspects of life in a world like that?  How could they appreciate what they have?

I don't see your point. A perfect world with perfect people would be a utopia. (Isn't heaven suppose to be like that any way? What an eternity.) There are always ways to grow with or with out being injured or any other dangerous situation. I grow every day just from poking around on the internet or having deep meaningful conversations with a friend.

also let me tell you something I come from a drug addiction I saw people praying on their knees to please god please help me! And that person never got clean they are still on the streets. God won't even help people who are asking for help then how good is he? He is not. Some one who was good would help the person no matter the circumstance. But that is irrelevant because the real reason is that god does not exist. Something that does not exist can not help a human in need.

[PickelledEggs]

"What's a god?"

I asked a religious person that once and after a few moments of them thinking about the question, the looked at me and cried.... That conversation was over FAST