How will you refute a Theist?

[benhur]

Comrades,

This isn't a challenge. I am asking this out of curiosity.

Suppose a Theist argues that God is real, and we say it's NOT so, because there's no evidence to prove his existence.

Wouldn't they argue that the so-called evidence is always subject to various conditions? Put simply, let's say perception is one of the sources of knowledge, and it can be considered evidence. When the naked eye was the sole instrument of perception, germs were a myth, so to speak. When finer instruments were developed, they became a reality.

Wouldn't the theist say something along similar lines? That God is a myth, only so long as our limited instruments cannot perceive him?

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes, and there was no valid reason to believe in germs before there was evidence of them. We're not arguing that there is no chance of there being a god, just that there's no reason to believe in one.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

This belongs in OI, I think.

[Hyacinth]

Suppose that a %*$&%($ian sais that %*$&%($ is real, are we to say that it is not?

The claim that 'god exists' isn't false, it is nonsense, it can't even be false.

[mikelepore]

Whether or not there's a reason to argue depends on whether someone asserts something observable. Suppose someone says: I believe in the existence of something that can't be detected, has no known features or characteristics, and if it does exist that that fact has no known consequences. (There are some people who have such a concept of religion for themselves.) I would say to them: uh-huh, that's very nice.

But if the person says that the hypothetical object has specific consequences, there's something to dispute. Suppose a person says: in the event of a disaster, people shouldn't try to help themselves; they should just sit down and recite prayers. Now we can have an argument. They are claiming that wishing for something will make it come true. I believe it's important to diminish the public tendency to think so erroneously, and so I would argue.

[Decolonize The Left]

Whether or not there's a reason to argue depends on whether someone asserts something observable. Suppose someone says: I believe in the existence of something that can't be detected, has no known features or characteristics, and if it does exist that that fact has no known consequences. (There are some people who have such a concept of religion for themselves.) I would say to them: uh-huh, that's very nice.

But if the person says that the hypothetical object has specific consequences, there's something to dispute. Suppose a person says: in the event of a disaster, people shouldn't try to help themselves; they should just sit down and recite prayers. Now we can have an argument. They are claiming that wishing for something will make it come true. I believe it's important to diminish the public tendency to think so erroneously, and so I would argue.

This is well put. I will add on it briefly.

In regards to the original post,

Wouldn't they argue that the so-called evidence is always subject to various conditions?They might, but you have made a step which you may not wish to make here. Note how you are debating the nature of the evidence, and not the nature of theism.
In the first place, the evidence that God does not exist is history - there have been countless Gods which turned out to be material phenomena with explanations. Simple. Why is the God you are discussing now different? Leave it to the theist to work this one out.
In the second place, the theist is not concerned with providing evidence. You must remember that the theist has faith - not necessarily reason.


That God is a myth, only so long as our limited instruments cannot perceive him? Possible. But this doesn't make it true does it? After all, I could claim that there's an invisible tiger sitting behind my computer, we just can't detect it with our limited instruments... is there?

The theist of which you speak posits a God, and then tries to justify what is not justifiable through incoherent arguments. Most theists don't even bother, they simply say it's 'their faith' and you ought to leave them alone.

- August

[Anti Freedom]

Why bother to refute a theist? Just refute a variety of theistic arguments, and that is hard to do without familiarity on theistic arguments. Here is my advice:

1) Be reasonably familiar with evolutionary theory if they try the argument from design.
2) Be knowledgeable on metaphysics to argue against the cosmological argument, Quentin Smith is a good source
3) Deny the existence of morality, in case they try the moral argument, and try to argue it is an adaptation
4) Recognize that not all historical specialists believe in the historicity of whatever religion
5) Deny or reassign transcendent things to materialist things. Like, have a materialist theory of logic/knowledge.
6) Recognize that no theist will ever agree with you, but a moderate theist might be able to respect you if you are familiar with all of the theistic arguments and can argue against them.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why has this not been moved to OI?

[PostAnarchy]

Prove it

Theist will say: Prove it doesn't exist!

OK then, I believe Big Bird is the god of all gods kicked JCs butt and is now real god masta!

Prove this isn't true. :)

[Lord Testicles]

Refuting a theist is pointless, since they think like this:
http://imagechan.com/images/ce7194e2cee83baa2be763de28c895c8.jpg

It's because their ideas are so weak, they need to use cop-outs like these (You can't prove god doesn't exist).

[AnthArmo]

Punch them in the face and scream out "Where is your god now!"

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

What are you talking about, of course you know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdiBrNnLfCE

[gilhyle]

Skinz has it right. Why do you want to prove the Theist wrong ? If it were just free masons believing in a great unmoved mover, you wouldnt be bothered. You would, in Skinz's example, just respond why should I ?

You want to prove the theist wrong solely because you want to dismantle the social power of religious institutions.

If you are driving down the road and another car is in your way, you dont destroy that car, you pass it out. Same thing with religion - Marxists dont destroy it, they pass it out.

[PigmerikanMao]

Three words: Prove god exists
They respond with "Prove he doesn't"
Then, Two words: Fuck off

You can't reason with them :rolleyes: