Attn: Christians, We've Heard Them Already

[Jackalope]

Good idea. About it being for tired and weak arguments in general, not the sausage thing. You can handle that one.

I see what you did there.

[fr0d0]

You could have awarded posts. Who would agree on those posts though? To me, Ryfts debate with violet on the supposed contradiction of God being unable to create a rock too heavy for him to lift pretty much destroys that old fallacy, but people would no doubt disagree.

Also, there's a forum guide to address common theist questions and common atheist retorts. Those still get debated though, and I think that's healthy. I've seen atheists argue well that atheism is a religion, for example. Who says the mob are always right? You'd have to temper those pretentions to infallibility with good counter arguments to present a balanced view.

[LastPoet]

You could have awarded posts. Who would agree on those posts though? To me, Ryfts debate with violet on the supposed contradiction of God being unable to create a rock too heavy for him to lift pretty much destroys that old fallacy, but people would no doubt disagree.

I don't think its a fallacy per se, more like a paradox. When used as an argument against god's existence, then it becomes a fallacy. As Ryft pointed out, a loaded question.

But on topic, fr0d0 isn't very repetitive on his arguments. There is always a new impossible to understand fr0d0 speak

[Rayaan]

---

---

[Doubting Thomas]

Altough its mighty fun to watch how christians react when the table is turned against them

We could just permaban anyone who admits to having religious beliefs the way Christian internet forums do to atheists.

[LastPoet]

Nah, no fun in that. Besides, to who would we point and laugh at then?

[Rayaan]

I agree with what CD said about the proposal for a subforum. I think doing this would be off-putting for many Christians and theists who come here.

Also, I think most of you already know that we theists won't be able to come up with any "new" arguments. Telling them "We've heard it all" or "Bring something new to the table" won't really make any difference because it's still going to be the same arguments over and over again whether there is a Canned Apologetic Arguments subforum or not.

DP himself explained the reason for that very concisely in a different post:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-13805-po...#pid311153

In science, there is always new information to consider. In history, there are some old ruins or parchments discovered that sheds light on what wasn't known before. There are always new developments in art. Philosophy also updates itself according to new information.

What would be the basis for a new theological argument? There is no new information that can be uncovered. There are no new tests that can be run. Theology can admit no changes to itself. All existing arguments have already been thought through as the established Church spared no expense, employing the greatest minds it could, for two thousand years.

Pity the apologist. They can't come up with anything new. It's all been bullshitted before.

[fr0d0]

But on topic, fr0d0 isn't very repetitive on his arguments. There is always a new impossible to understand fr0d0 speak :D

I'm feeling the love poet :heart: :D

[Cyberman]

My point isn't that religious people aren't repetitive in their arguments, my point is that Atheists- who are just as repetitive and nauseating - put themselves in an obviously infallible position where they obviously can do no wrong and do not need to be caged in an encyclopedic sub forum consisting of arguments opposing religion or otherwise in favour of Atheism.

<Ahem>:



Even if "caging [religious people] in an encyclopedic sub forum" is the intention here - and that's been the subject of the last baker's dozen pages - that masthead is meant as a bit of a clue.

[fr0d0]

That's just a trick to lure you all in Stimbo