Arguments we Shouldn't Use

[GurrenLagann]

What are some typical arguments from our side you'd like to not see/see corrected?

I think for me, it's got to be claiming that Jesus can be said to be known to be a mere compilation of mythical figures. One major contention is that there are many gods who die and return and thus Jesus is just another that adds to that trope, an argument that has been rebutted by the majority of the historical community:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_god

[Philosophos]

The Jesus parallels are pretty bad.

Also, if anybody thinks the Bible came to be through a vote (especially at the Council of Nicea), they need to learn their history better.

Generally any argument that asks for an explanation ("Why would God do x?") or guesses God's motives ("God wouldn't make the universe so big if it were just for us!") just invites the theist to make shit up, or is very limited in scope, and so aren't really worth pursuing.

On a more subtle level, I think the logical problem of evil fails (but the evidential problem doesn't) - but the logical problem of evil isn't jaw-droppingly bad like saying Horus had 12 disciples like Jesus did. Just because an argument fails doesn't mean it's terrible.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd like to see the Argument by You're a Dumbass get dropped.

Yes, you and I both know that the arguments against faith-based thinking are decisive.  But calling the people  names whom you wish to convert, and insulting their intelligence, should be abandoned immediately.

Put it this way: has anyone, in your entire life, ever convinced you to change your mind about any topic by saying, "you, [insert name here], are a a fucking idiot"?

Now, if that approach didn't work with you, you should probably not practice it yourself.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Also, if anybody thinks the Bible came to be through a vote (especially at the Council of Nicea), they need to learn their history better.

There were several different councils, and several rounds of voting, but that does not mean that the Bible is not synthetic.  It only means the process is a little more complex.

[Philosophos]

Also, if anybody thinks the Bible came to be through a vote (especially at the Council of Nicea), they need to learn their history better.

There were several different councils, and several rounds of voting, but that does not mean that the Bible is not synthetic.  It only means the process is a little more complex.

I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't "synthetic" but the process was not just a little more complex than a bunch of votes - it was a lot more so.

[Davka]

All of the arguments about where the Bible came from, when, and who wrote it are pointless. All we really need to do is point at what the Bible actually says.

Also, the arguments about a historical v mythical Jesus are just stupid. There's not enough evidence for either position, and it doesn't matter, because again all we need to do is look at what the NT actually says.

There's a big-ass ostentatious gated mansion down the road a ways, and they regularly put up big lit signs just outside their walls with religious crap on them. They are at a major 4-way stop, so I find myself staring at their signs while waiting for the light to change. Today their sign reads "Jesus <3s You! John 3:16."

I have a deep, dastardly desire to make an equally large sign that says 'Jesus said "If you want to be perfect, go, sell all your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." Matt. 19:21.' I'd love to plant my sign right next to theirs and see how long it stays up.  

[The Non Prophet]

Never use anything you heard from Zeitgeist.