Stopping a religotard in their tracks

[PickelledEggs]

I was thinking today: "Is there a way to completely stump someone in their argument for their god EVEN if they are a fundamentalist"

This is what I came up with so far

The basic dialogue goes:

-Do you mind me asking a few things about your god?

(most situations, I would expect they would say "yes")
-Is your god all knowing?
(yes)
-Is your god all powerful?
(yes)
-Is your god all-loving?
(yes)
-is your god everywhere at the same time, all the time?
(yes)


-What is your god's role in the 2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami that resulted in over 13,000 fatalities?


If you guys know of any other decent "stop a religiotard in it's tracks" arguments, post them below!

I have been anxious to actually ask someone that in person, but between recovering from my cold and busy with my commissions, I haven't been able to get out yet.

[GalacticBusDriver]

"God works in mysterious ways"

Sorry, but I don't think there is a stumper for a fundamentalist. These are the people who know their gawd ordered genocides and are ok with it.

[aitm]

Apparently you young whippersnapper, you don't know how God works. You see you hell bound infidel, God promises his grace upon those who truly believe. I truly believe, and those who do not? Well.........

[PickelledEggs]

"God works in mysterious ways"

Sorry, but I don't think there is a stumper for a fundamentalist. These are the people who know their gawd ordered genocides and are ok with it.

Yes. I am aware of these people and even know a few of them personally.

To this, I would ask them how that fits in to their god's all-lovingness and see where it goes from there.

Apparently you young whippersnapper, you don't know how God works. You see you hell bound infidel, God promises his grace upon those who truly believe. I truly believe, and those who do not? Well.........

Lol ok poe-mode-aitm.

Since that is basically a "god works in mysterious ways" line. I would just say that if god wants to be so mysterious, he doesn't seem like he wants to be believed in.

----

I know that I'm never going to have a conversation that is going to 180 someone's faith, btw. Any time I even talk to someone that believes something so unrealistic, my main focus is to leave them thinking about it a little more objectively when I'm done. (hopefully)

[LoriPinkAngel]

Well, this worked on the horrible jerks that keep asking to see my electric bill to supposedly save me tons of money -- went to the door with my hot dog and dinner plate in my hands and said I couldn't talk.  Perhaps I'll keep a half-eaten hot dog at the ready for the religious solicitors as well.

[PickelledEggs]

Well, this worked on the horrible jerks that keep asking to see my electric bill to supposedly save me tons of money -- went to the door with my hot dog and dinner plate in my hands and said I couldn't talk.  Perhaps I'll keep a half-eaten hot dog at the ready for the religious solicitors as well.

[Drummer Guy]

If you guys know of any other decent "stop a religiotard in it's tracks" arguments, post them below!

I don't think that someone who uses a word like "religiotard" has enough empathy to be able to understand someone else's position well enough to communicate with them effectively.

What you did in the OP is bring up the problem of evil.  This isn't some kind of new challenge to theists that will stop them dead in their tracks, it's something that many of them have already thought of.  They will have responses to it.  I'm not claiming that their responses will be adequate, but nonetheless it won't stop them dead in their tracks.

[PickelledEggs]

I don't think that someone who uses a word like "religiotard" has enough empathy to be able to understand someone else's position well enough to communicate with them effectively.

What you did in the OP is bring up the problem of evil.  This isn't some kind of new challenge to theists that will stop them dead in their tracks, it's something that many of them have already thought of.  They will have responses to it.  I'm not claiming that their responses will be adequate, but nonetheless it won't stop them dead in their tracks.

My goal was to point out that something as horrific and tragic as 13,000 plus people dead from a natural disaster contradicts their view of God,  which in this scenario, it does. Of course, like you are saying though, not everyone that is naive enough to believe something of such extravagant nonsense would be able to realize it contradicts it, but hey... I'm optimistic.

Sent from your mom

[Drummer Guy]

My goal was to point out that something as horrific and tragic as 13,000 plus people dead from a natural disaster contradicts their view of God,  which in this scenario, it does. Of course, like you are saying though, not everyone that is naive enough to believe something of such extravagant nonsense would be able to realize it contradicts it, but hey... I'm optimistic.

Sent from your mom

But it doesn't contradict their view of god.  Their view of god would have to be such that he is required to intervene at every moment that harm may come to a human.  But that's not what their view of god is.

[stromboli]

I just point out that they can't prove a single word of what they believe, tell them to come back when they can, and shut the door in their face.

[PickelledEggs]

But it doesn't contradict their view of god.  Their view of god would have to be such that he is required to intervene at every moment that harm may come to a human.  But that's not what their view of god is.

Actually it does. An all loving god, would never allow bad things to happen to good people... or anyone for that matter. That is what all-loving is. His all-powerfulness and all-knowingness would allow him to find a way to prevent everything bad from happening.


At this point of the conversation, after they demonstrate how oblivious they are of their own stupidity, how him allowing (or even causing) a tragedy like this or of any kind contradicts those views they have of their god, I would ask them this:

Multiple choice. God allows bad things to happen because:
a- he causes them
b- he can't
c- he doesn't care
d- he doesn't exist

(credit for that goes to Ricky Gervais)

In all honesty, I could ask that first.... but I tend to enjoy probing what people are thinking first and qualify them for the next best question (I've had too many years in sales.... )
The mulitple choice doesn't do much IMO other than try to force the person to realize that the god they believe in is either a lazy prick, a malevolent cunt, or an indifferent  and incompetent twat. I could try to do more probing, but, there is no purpose because they already demonstrated how stubbornly ignorant they are and I've decided to move on in my day.... maybe get a pizza or jerk off to some space documentary (at that point any form of genuine intelligence would probably make me cream in my pants)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gawd doesn't work in mysterious ways, Gawd just punches them in the face.

[Drummer Guy]

An all loving god, would never allow bad things to happen to good people...

Why not?  I love my children but that doesn't mean that I should pad every corner of my house where they could get hurt.  It doesn't mean that I prevent them from going out and doing anything where they may get hurt.  It doesn't mean that I stand beside them 24/7 and stop them from doing anything that would hurt them.  If I want them to learn and grow as people I let them become their own person.  You may respond with a situation where they would die, and that does happen to some people, but does that mean that their parents didn't love them?  You may respond to that with and explanation that if the parents could have prevented it they would have, but if someone knew that they could just do whatever they wanted and they would always get stopped before it became dangerous, what kind of person would they be?  Would they be responsible?  Would they respect and value their life?

You'll have to do a better job justifying the position that a loving god would stop every bad thing that could happen to someone, and you'll have to work out the consequences to such an existence.

Now, on some level I do agree with you, but I'm simply pointing out that this isn't an argument that will stop a theist dead in their tracks.

[Drummer Guy]

Multiple choice. God allows bad things to happen because:
a- he causes them
b- he can't
c- he doesn't care
d- he doesn't exist

It's loaded question.  If I had some supernatural ability and I let my kid go skiing, and they broke their leg, did they break their leg because:
a- he causes them
b- he can't
c- he doesn't care
d- he doesn't exist

See how it doesn't really work?  You need to add e-I allow them to do the things they enjoy unhindered, so that they can live their lives how they choose.

[PickelledEggs]

It's loaded question.  If I had some supernatural ability and I let my kid go skiing, and they broke their leg, did they break their leg because:
a- he causes them
b- he can't
c- he doesn't care
d- he doesn't exist

See how it doesn't really work?  You need to add e-I allow them to do the things they enjoy unhindered, so that they can live their lives how they choose.

I'm sure he didn't enjoy breaking his leg. And I'm sure he didn't choose to break his leg. If a god is defined by the above things (all-powerful, all loving, etc) He would find a way to let the person ski without having to break his leg.

That option you gave me is completely redundant, is practically a repeat of a, b, and c, so the original 4 still stand. So answer me this:
did he break his leg because god didn't have the power to prevent it? because the forces that caused it are beyond his control?
did god cause the broken leg as a "lesson" for how not to ski? or as a punishment for something bad he did?
or did god just not care enough to help him evade injury, despite his all-powerfulness?