Best Theistic Arguments

[Whateverist]

Not all atheists agree with the 'lack of belief' canard, so why should I?

Not all Christians believe in worshipping their god the same way.  They even dusagree on parts of their holy book.

So, why should we accept their beliefs until they all agree?

I suspect they would have us take the long path of thoroughly investigation each denomination's beliefs to determine if any at all are acceptable.  Only then will they think highly of us as skeptics .. just as if anyone gave two shits.

[Simon Moon]

Atheists don;t believe in -gods-....how many fucking times do you need to be told this, honestly? 

Not all atheists agree with the 'lack of belief' canard, so why should I?

Lack of belief is not a canard.

It is the minimum position that defines an atheist. Sure, some atheists go further (actively disbelieve gods exist, believe that no gods exist, claim to know that no gods exist). But that does not negate the fact that some atheist lack belief gods exist.

And to take it even further, in a debate with theists, lack of belief is the only position that needs to be defended. Theist have the burden of proof, and all that...

[The Grand Nudger]

Not that it matters..since he's just diverting from another silly thing he deigned to say. I really don't get Neo. He seems like a guy who wants to be taken seriously...................?

[Mystic]

Theist have the burden of proof, and all that...

Theists do have the burden of the proof but now that I'm finally understanding, if and only if those listening are actually trying to understand and listen.

[RoadRunner79]

Theist have the burden of proof, and all that...

Theists do have the burden of the proof but now that I'm finally understanding, if and only if those listening are actually trying to understand and listen.

Beware, some like to make out as if only atheist have a burden of proof.

[Fake Messiah]

I would argue that life only comes from life. This is a fact not a claim.

It has never been observed or demonstrated that life can spawn from non-life, therefore making abiogenesis a claim for which no evidence exists.

Sure, if that argument comes along you can say that there are stuff that are not alive and not exactly dead, like viruses who only have RNA, so it's reasnable to assume that DNA evolved from RNA since an activated RNA actually builds DNA.

RNA and DNA are both made of many-times repeated components called nucleotides. Researchers have shown how RNA nucleotides could have formed naturally in conditions now expected of the prebiotic Earth. In a Wired.com article, biochemist Adam Johnson notes:

"The amino acid precursors formed in a plume and concentrated along tidal shores. They settled in the water, underwent further reactions there, and as they washed along the shore, became concentrated and underwent further polymerization events."

https://www.wired.com/2008/10/forgotten-exper/

[Pat Mustard]

I am going to debate a theist over the existence of god soon. What are the best arguments you ever heard from theists? Any tips on what topic to avoid in such an discussion? 
Thanks in advance

A brain can't develop without thinking beforehand. Thoroughly apodictic.

Dredging up the long discredited "what good is half an eye argument?".

Beats thinking at least.

---

Theist have the burden of proof, and all that...

Theists do have the burden of the proof but now that I'm finally understanding, if and only if those listening are actually trying to understand and listen.

No. It's "theists have the burden of proof, because they are making the claim". Google Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot some time.

[Angrboda]

Theist have the burden of proof, and all that...

Theists do have the burden of the proof but now that I'm finally understanding, if and only if those listening are actually trying to understand and listen.

Argument tends to be an adversarial process, largely as a result of biases of which we are not conscious. Given the biases propelling the dynamic seem to operate subconsciously, it's hard to imagine argument working out any other way, even with the best of intentions. Some methods, like the Delphi method, aim to get around this, with some success, but a Delphi is the exception, not the norm. There appear to be strong evolutionary reasons why our social habits of argument evolved this way.

I think what you mean by "actually trying" is that unless they agree with you, they are lying and subject to "dark forces." On top of that, you don't bother to apply the same standard when you're evaluating opponent's counter-arguments. You've effectively said that if you don't agree with such, you just dismiss them. That essentially makes your complaint here an example of hypocrisy. You're a dishonest cad, MK.

[Brian37]

I am going to debate a theist over the existence of god soon. What are the best arguments you ever heard from theists? Any tips on what topic to avoid in such an discussion? 
Thanks in advance

There are no good arguments.

I will say however, there are some pretty slick ones that, if you didn't know better could stump you.

My best advice if you are going to take on ANY THEIST, and that would include even religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism, which have no monotheistic god character, you should still understand the same pattern exists in every religion worldwide.

1. I got it right.
2. My club has a history of tradition.
3. I am moral because of my religion.

You have apologists in EVERY RELIGION whom, when they cant simply point to their holy writings/holy people, they will attack science. When they cant get away with that they will instead try to get science to point to their club. BUT and mind you, EVERY RELIGION, has apologists whom do those things, including Buddhists and Jews and Hindus.

The slick ones are those whom the apologists try to argue science like QM or thermodynamics, but again, debate enough of a variety of religions, you'll see that in all of them.

There are no good arguments for any label, and the reason cuts to the fact that scientific method is not a religion, but a process and is not there to prop up any religion/holy writing or holy person.

NOW MIND YOU, I am NOT saying one can or should even try to force any religion out of existence, but just in that the arguments are not good because once you start interjecting your pet label into it, the neutral objectivity is shot. 

The other reason I'd also argue that there are no good arguments is the age of our species, far older than any religion, or human writings at all for that matter. The age of our planet and our sun and the universe also contradict the idea "all this" was put here for humans.

It makes much more sense to me that humans simply buy what their parents sell them prior to developing the ability to have adult critical thinking skills.

I'd argue that most humans are DECENT in their intent but their logic sucks. I'd argue that our species morality isn't handed down to us from a divine place, but has always been in our genes. 

Keep these things in mind no matter whom you debate, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist or Hindu or any other religion or deity claim. I think you'll see the same patters over time like I have. 

It isn't that theists are bad, I think most are not bad, but we are talking about logic, not human rights.

---

Theist have the burden of proof, and all that...

Theists do have the burden of the proof but now that I'm finally understanding, if and only if those listening are actually trying to understand and listen.

Mystic, I will throw a fucking party with balloons and noise makers and strippers and coke....... Ok, maybe not the coke and strippers.

YES, theists do have the burden. FULL STOP.

Try to listen and understand yourself.

I SWEAR if you do that, you'll get it, and I will name my kid after you. Ok, I don't want a kid, but still, I would be thrilled if you finally got it.

JOIN THE DARK SIDE LUKE!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Theists do have the burden of the proof but now that I'm finally understanding, if and only if those listening are actually trying to understand and listen.

Beware, some like to make out as if only atheist have a burden of proof.

Those who say theists are wrong to believe and yet opine that God does not exist without defending their position are pussies.