Atheists, what are the most convincing theist arguments you heard of?

[Pat Mustard]

There are no convincing theist arguments, for one good reason. Theist arguments are given not to convince non-believers, but to reassure believers that they are right. So what is given are authoritive sounding arguments which play to the prejudices of those who already think the arguer is correct.

[Flavius]

I don't think I've ever heard a theist present a logical argument. The only thing you hear them say is how the hand of christ leapt down from heaven and they can now talk to God.

[masterofpuppets]

I don't think I've ever heard a theist present a logical argument. The only thing you hear them say is how the hand of christ leapt down from heaven and they can now talk to God.

The worst thing theists say is "you need to believe first in order to see the evidence for God". That's called deluding oneself.

[Jesster]

The worst thing theists say is "you need to believe first in order to see the evidence for God". That's called deluding oneself.

I'm so fucking tired of hearing this one. Even if it wasn't logically flawed, I've already tried this one anyway. I believed for years without any actual evidence. The lack of evidence caught up with my beliefs eventually, though.

[Flavius]

I don't think I've ever heard a theist present a logical argument. The only thing you hear them say is how the hand of christ leapt down from heaven and they can now talk to God.

The worst thing theists say is "you need to believe first in order to see the evidence for God". That's called deluding oneself.

It's just plain circular logic. If your only proof for your belief is that you must believe in that belief, then something is wrong.

EDIT: Let's not forget about the placebo effect, if you convince yourself that Mr. God talked to you, then hell, it will become undeniable proof (to you).

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Hello AF members.  I have a few questions that are directed at the Christian theist members here.

Out of curiosity, to what degree does faith play a factor in religious argumentation? When trying to establish the existence of god via a reason-based approach (observations in nature, science, logical argumentation etc.), do theists ultimately have to revert back to their holy books and faith in order to link their arguments and conclusions with their particular god?  If theists link humanity's current knowledge base to ancient texts, then could this lead to a backward understanding of their deity and inhibit new theistic insights/discoveries? How do theists ensure that their understanding of their deity leads them forward and not backward?

[SteveII]

Hello AF members.  I have a few questions that are directed at the Christian theist members here.

Out of curiosity, to what degree does faith play a factor in religious argumentation? When trying to establish the existence of god via a reason-based approach (observations in nature, science, logical argumentation etc.), do theists ultimately have to revert back to their holy books and faith in order to link their arguments and conclusions with their particular god? [1] If theists link humanity's current knowledge base to ancient texts, then could this lead to a backward understanding of their deity and inhibit new theistic insights/discoveries? How do theists ensure that their understanding of their deity leads them forward and not backward? [2]

1. "Faith" and "revert back to their holy books" are not the same thing. You do not need faith to rationally argue about the existence of God. You do not need a holy books either. However, you will nee some direct revelation (contained in a holy book) if you want to find out what particular characteristics, purpose, or goals your proposed God has. 

2. Why would this lead to a backwards understanding of God? That only makes sense if you believe that somehow God evolved over time (which is certainly not the belief in Christianity).

[Brian37]

Hello AF members.  I have a few questions that are directed at the Christian theist members here.

Out of curiosity, to what degree does faith play a factor in religious argumentation? When trying to establish the existence of god via a reason-based approach (observations in nature, science, logical argumentation etc.), do theists ultimately have to revert back to their holy books and faith in order to link their arguments and conclusions with their particular god? [1] If theists link humanity's current knowledge base to ancient texts, then could this lead to a backward understanding of their deity and inhibit new theistic insights/discoveries? How do theists ensure that their understanding of their deity leads them forward and not backward? [2]

1. "Faith" and "revert back to their holy books" are not the same thing. You do not need faith to rationally argue about the existence of God. You do not need a holy books either. However, you will nee some direct revelation (contained in a holy book) if you want to find out what particular characteristics, purpose, or goals your proposed God has. 

2. Why would this lead to a backwards understanding of God? That only makes sense if you believe that somehow God evolved over time (which is certainly not the belief in Christianity).

1. "You do not need faith to rationally argue about the existence of Allah"
2. You do not need faith to rationally argue about the existence of Yahweh"
3. "You do not need faith to rationally argue about the wisdom of Buddha"
4. "You do not need faith to rationally argue about the Hindu creator God Brahama"

Yea yea yea Charlie Brown's teacher, you really think you got the right one. Again so what, debate a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu and they will also make the same claim.

Here is a better solution to all the competing claims humans make.

"You do not need faith"........ There, no muss no fuss. Atheists do it all the time. Other species also don't have religions or holy people and other species have been around far longer than humans.

I'd say god claims evolved over time because social norms changed and technology changed. The first deity/god claims were earthy, like vocano gods and storm gods and animal spirits. The more human like deities/gods came about when humans learned how to farm in one place, that is when the first cities came about, monotheism came much later.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Brian, please stop trolling.

[Brian37]

Brian, please stop trolling.

Not trolling. Sorry you don't like me repeating you got it wrong, but you did. How about you try considering you got it wrong instead of accusing me of doing things I am not doing.