(April 7, 2014 at 9:08 am)alpha male Wrote:(April 6, 2014 at 11:06 pm)Cobra Commander Wrote: So I'm in this one religious argument on another site, and my opponent just made me lol. I won't say any names, but his argument, revised by me for grammar, is as follows:That's fine, but your own ranks are guilty of the same. When a discussion on god's attributes isn't going well for the atheist, other atheists will jump in and ask for proof that god exists, as if his attributes can't be discussed absent such proof.
"I just hate the ones that say God is a dick, douche, or tyrant, because how can he be any of those things if he doesn't exist?"
My response was simple.
"How can Darth Vader be a tyrant if he doesn't exist?"
Fictional characters have attributes just as much as real people. Just because Darth Vader doesn't exist, doesn't mean he isn't a tyrant. And, just because God doesn't exist, doesn't mean he isn't a douche.
More persecution crying: "I came to an Atheist forum to discuss the attributes of my god, and there are people here questioning whether or not God exists, and demanding support for attributes I say God has!"
As if the usual special pleading should hold water at an Atheist forum or anywhere else people value critical thinking, and asking for support of claims counts as "derailing" a claim-a-thon.
Atheists are responsible for backing up their claims, but God gets special consideration? A theist can add whatever attribute they want to "God is -" and throw a tantrum when they're questioned, whereas Atheists are expected to prove a negative.
This is the same thing as being accused of cheating at poker for not allowing someone to pick their own hand of face cards from the deck.
