Probably the most hilarious anti-atheist argument I've ever seen.

[Rampant.A.I.]

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:

"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.

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.

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.

[tor]

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:

"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.

Some douches exist. Some don't.
One less douche is always a good thing. Especially if it's an omnipotent one.

[Faith No More]

Quiddich isn't an attribute of Harry Potter so you analogy falls short.

Quiddich is an attribute of the Harry Potter universe, so no, it doesn't. And even if that were true, it's completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Quiddich can be discussed without first assuming it exists.

You could say the theists like to keep pointing out that, despite how well you can ever argue the problem of evil, its a silly argument to make if God doesn't exist.

Which is drivel I've only ever heard from theists who, by the way, always completely fail to justify out how this is true. The belief in god is something that affects everyone, including atheists, so no, it isn't silly to argue its merits. When you stop trying to run everyone's lives based upon your beliefs, we'll think the argument is silly.

In both cases if the argument is about God's attributes. Its just bad argumentation to try to change the goal posts in the middle of the game.

Agreed, but that does not make my point nor the fact that you have no evidence any less true.

[RobbyPants]

"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?"

That's actually a really smart argument* (if they stick to it and don't seriously discuss Darth Vader). Any skeptic who brings up negative qualities because they don't believe. As for the believers... they just don't mention the negative qualities, and life is great!

* By smart argument, I mean, it gets rid of cognitive dissonance nicely, and that's really the goal of apologetics, when you think about it.

[orogenicman]

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:

"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.

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.

Well, yeah, we can talk about the attributes of unicorns too, but that doesn't mean they actually exist!

[Brakeman]

When atheists speak of god's qualities, it it generally understood that the tag line "in the story" is implied.
It simply saves us a lot of unnecessary typing.

It's absence is a pathetic string for a theist to grab onto.

[RobbyPants]

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.

This seems like a fair criticism. If the discussion is "Is God moral given XYZ?", it seems that you'd have to accept XYZ for purpose of the discussion to even have the discussion.

Now, a lot of these discussions seem to quickly change to arguments of semantics, definitions, or even nonfalsifiable claims. A better way to address that would be to simply state "your position is nonfalsifiable and I don't grant you those assumptions", which likely becomes an "agree to disagree".

That is certainly a more honest exchange than to say "Well, I don't believe in XYZ, so this conversation is dumb".

[Rampant.A.I.]

Maybe it wasn't clear enough in the particular thread being whined about, but given the number of different sects of Christianity, it's reasonable to ask for support to how attributes XYZ apply to their version of God other than giving the theist free reign to add on whatever attributes they like.

You can't play a game of chess, for example, with an opponent who can change the rules whenever they like.

"Checkmate."
"Nope, I'll move my rook."
"You can't move a rook like that."
"Well, my rook is a divine rook: it can move to whatever space it likes."
"Uh, ok. Checkmate."
"Nope. My queen just fired her laser at your knight."
"What?"
"Your knight is dead. Laser queen. It's in the rules."

It's not only a matter of showing God exists, which can be suspended for the sake of argument, but when your opponent can't tell you what the rules/characteristics of their specific deity are and why, the game is not worth playing.

Out of the theists on this board right now, some argue God is omnibenevolent. Some reject this. That's a pretty important rule to nail down before you start talking about God's moral code.

[orogenicman]

Well, logically speaking, it does make sense to discuss whether a god even exists BEFORE we discuss its alleged attributes.

When you discuss God's attributes there is an implied assumption( an assumption which only exists for the sake of argument) that said God does exists.

It seems to me that that is putting the cart before the horse.

[RobbyPants]

It's not only a matter of showing God exists, which can be suspended for the sake of argument, but when your opponent can't tell you what the rules/characteristics of their specific deity are and why, the game is not worth playing.

Out of the theists on this board right now, some argue God is omnibenevolent. Some reject this. That's a pretty important rule to nail down before you start talking about God's moral code.

Okay, I agree totally. If you haven't nailed down all the variables, then that leaves the other person wiggle room to say they've always assumed a certain unspoken variable.