Do atheists have an achilles heel when it comes to religious arguments?

Tim Robbins

Overblood wrote: »

Are there any positions in a christianity/atheist debate in which you find yourself and backed into a corner?

The only thing I find even remotely challenging is the great humanitarian work that people like Fr. Peter McVerry do. That's more an act rather than an argument.

Any religious argument that attempts to use logic is usually so devoid of logic, it's not even worth considering.

Dades

CDfm wrote: »

The core issue - does a supreme being need to reveal themselves - no. His/Her view might be- No why should I -there is the bible as evidence and you can take it or leave it.

I'm confused.

Did the "supreme being" not reveal himself on several occasions? So obviously He felt there was a need to do so. However from the point of atheists the revelations aren't really befitting an entity responsible for creating the entire universe, and look suspiciously like one of a thousand invented religious codes humans are responsible for.

CDfm

Dades wrote: »

I'm confused.

Did the "supreme being" not reveal himself on several occasions? So obviously He felt there was a need to do so. However from the point of atheists the revelations aren't really befitting an entity responsible for creating the entire universe, and look suspiciously like one of a thousand invented religious codes humans are responsible for.

Dades - am I the Pope or something.

I think if there were free elections for Pope you would vote for me.

Its a mystery innit which is why scientists find it difficult. Scientists are a God joke.

chris.henshaw

Overblood wrote: »

Are there any positions in a christianity/atheist debate in which you find yourself and backed into a corner?

Personally, I don't know how to defend an argument for the irrational.

Human beings possess both rational and irrational characteristics, in my experience.

Logic and reason tell me that it is extremely unlikely a being such as God exists. It's even less likely that any such being as defined in the Abrahamic religions could exist. Arguments which seek to defend what is written in the Bible or in Biblical history, such as those in works by Lee Stobel or C.S. Lewis, are thin and so called supported evidence is often easy to disprove. More sophisticated theist proofs often need to transcend or simply ignore Bible lore to remain valid. My favorite is the idea of a "relatively" omnipotent and eternal God. Can someone tell me which book in the Bible contains that reference?

What I cannot argue against (at least, beyond simply shouting "That's irrational!"), are those who claim they speak with God when no one else hears it, who call it a miracle from above when the one person in 10,000 is cured after visiting a holy shrine, or when someone says they feel drawn to a higher or perfect being. I can attempt to point out what all those things are likely to be, but I can't convince them it isn't what they believe it to be -- some evidence of God.

The only thing I can do is write about it and hope someone with an unclouded mind reads it ... and understands.

CDfm

The obvious achilles heel is that Atheists are wrong.

5uspect

CDfm wrote: »

The obvious achilles heel is that Atheists are wrong.

At least we acknowledge that we may be wrong.

Valmont

There is an achilles heel and it resides in an individuals subjective belief in a divine being. Seeing as we cannot prove that God does not exist, our arguments simply hit a brick wall, on the individual level at least.

I enjoy arguing about creationism or about organised religion but I like to avoid the God argument as it is outside the realm of reason for most people i.e. it is faith, which you can't really argue with. Not much of an Achilles heel though, is it?

Overblood

CDfm wrote: »

The obvious achilles heel is that Atheists are wrong.

Hahaha