While surfing the Interwebz I came across this great site for entertainment value only in my eyes. It's The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. Essentially they are there to make excuses and try to refute ALL other belief structures as wrong and or incorrect. I found a post there between one of the apologetics and an atheist. I am posting it here and will put my responses in BOLD to the conversation below.
This atheist actually believed he knew for a fact that there was no God. I found that position to be interesting and, quite honestly, not possible. Of course you did, you will say anything to get people to believe in your illogical and ill conceived notions of there being a magic man in the sky.
Also, he and I discussed faith a bit towards the end.
Atheist: As to religious arguments I haven't found one that can stand up to the logic of atheism.
Matt: Are you a strong atheist or a weak one? An atheist is an atheist. A theist is a theist. What is the necessity of ranking them other than to prove an illogical argument?
Atheist: Never heard of a weak atheist. EXACTLY!
Matt: I’ll explain. A strong atheist states that there is no God. He knows there is no God. A weak atheist, basically, 'lacks belief' in a god of any sort. So conversely, a strong Christian knows they ARE a sinner and a weak Christian just thinks they "might be."? Stupid if you ask me.
Atheist: Then I am a strong atheist. Don't buy into his crap. Just say "I am an Atheist. No additional definitions needed."
Matt: Then you know there is no God? We all there is NO God, just like we know there isn't an Easter Bunny.
Atheist: As much as knowledge can tell us yes..Maybe it's you who have to catch up on your atheism... Agnostic fits the description pretty well of a weak atheist... Maybe he also needs to catch up logic, reason and intelligent debate.
Matt: That is what I said...which are you?
Atheist: I am a strong. Characteristic human thought, coupled with hope is what religion boils down to, the unexplained tried to be explained...
Matt: So, you know there is no god?
Matt: How can you know that?
Atheist: It's a reasonable assumption. If you want a definitive answer. Does any Christian bother to look in the dictionary to what truth actually means? There is no 100% anything. Only close to it. Why oh why did you go there? This will just feed his argument. Honestly, just state the facts, you will NEVER convice this guy of anything.
Matt: Then you cannot KNOW there is no God. Your strong atheism is illogical. No, belief in a magic man in the sky THAT is illogical.
Atheist: Let's look at Christianity. It runs on faith. Faith is not logical. It gives credence to unicorns, goblins and thing s that go bump in the night. Exactly.
Matt: Nope. The subject is your atheism. Please don't try to change the subject. Oh, he doesn't want to defend belief in god, he just wants to attack a non-believer. Typical.
Atheist: The subject can jump where ever.
Matt: Your atheism is illogical. You cannot know there is no God. To do that, you'd have to know All things to know there is no God. And conversely, you would have to know the same to know that there IS. Your argument is illogical as well. Using YOUR logic we must believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy.
Atheist: I will defend, but also place in attack. Try to defend faith
Matt: One subject at a time....You'd have to have seen all evidences to know there is no God. You cannot claim this, therefore, your atheism is illogical. Seriously? that is your argument?
Atheist: You can never see all evidences but that does not mean there is a god.
Atheist: No, that means there is not enough information for a conclusion. So we make assumptions as best we can according to our knowledge...
Matt: But you must concede that your claim to strong atheism (that you know there is no God) is not logical. You gave the definition which is ridiculous on its face therefore your entire premise is not only illogical but moronic.
Atheist: My knowledge of the human brain leads me to believe there is no god...
Matt: Then that means there MIGHT be a God, because you don't know all the evidence. Therefore, you must logically be an agnostic. Why the word play? Because you CANNOT defend the position that there IS a god. Why can't you? Because there isn't. You can't prove there is and so you attack using word games to cover your own ineptitude.
Atheist: And so must you... But you picked a side.
Matt: Then it [your atheism] is not logical, but only assumptions you base your atheism on. Your atheism is untenable.... You must admit that agnosticism is more logically viable. If you admit that, we can discuss my faith. Ahh now it comes out. Your entire argument is to get someone to admit something they don't believe so you can SHOVE your beliefs at them and hope they accept it. Poor strategy my friend, poor strategy.
Atheist: I'm not ignorant to say I don't use faith. But only the usage of faith in a situation that remains provable.
Matt: So, are you agnostic or atheist? which is it?
Matt: You've lost the argument. Sorry... It's a one sided argument, of course he lost. He lost before it started since you as the instigator set the rules without letting him know what they were! Just like your magic man in the sky. You change the rules when it suits you.
Atheist: Wrong. What you're doing is a ploy. You bring me over.. but you stay the same. Either you must move over as well or the argument is mute in the first place. One can not keep faith and call his beliefs logical. For a bit I will stray over to the agnostic side. But I am willing to state instances where I believe prove my contention that there is no god. Nice my friend, nice.
Matt: You have been cornered.... It is not logical for you to claim strong atheism. You have not seen all the facts. Therefore, the possibility of God's existence is real. Therefore, you must admit that agnosticism is more logical in this situation. Alright, Let's talk faith. What? You have done nothing but talk in circles. Nothing you have said is logical or in any way pulls anyone toward your argument. You simply cloud the issue to forward your own agenda.
Atheist: Alright faith. you first.
Matt: I believe God exists. I have faith that he exists. Of course you do. How else do you explain unicorns, santa claus, and the easter bunny?
Matt: I have none. So you admit you are a WEAK Christian? hahaha. Argument lost according to your rules.
Atheist: No proof with faith. So, do you always believe in things that you can not prove? I see where you are going. I doubt he will let it go that way though.
Matt: No... not at all... I have evidences, but they cannot lead to 100% proof or else all could be forced to believe. But, if there is enough evidence, I do believe. Again, you are a Weak Christian!
Atheist: So you must be agnostic in that sense as well.
Matt: No... because I make choices. Though it is possible for my faith to be proven wrong, I still rest on the evidences and draw logical conclusions. Faith in a magic man in the sky is illogical. Therefore your faith is illogical and your arguments are silly and worthless.
Matt: Yes.... And that evidence would be what?
Atheist: Then you disregard one of the most fundamental rules of the game...
Matt: Which is?
Atheist: "Where ever knowledge is incomplete, there is a place for "faith;" but where ever knowledge and "faith" conflict, it is "faith" which must be modified or abandoned." Exactly.
Matt: Or the understanding must be reevaluated.... 'Facts' have been found to be wrong before. Very true, the Earth is indeed a sphere.
Atheist: Facts are not Truths. They are reasonable assumptions. I will get a dictionary definition for that one...
Matt: That's fine. So what about it? What kind of evidence would be sufficient for you to conclude there is a god? Oh, I don't know. Meeting God would be a good start.
Atheist: Fact - Reality or actuality as distinguished to from conjecture or fantasy; Something known by observation or experience to be true or real.
Matt: That's good.... Now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence? Meeting God. Hearing a chorus of angels etc.
Atheist: An instance of superiority... Something humans could not do.. OR not be able to explained through phenomena but event then... You mean like a giant hand coming out of the sky.
Matt: That's good... now... what would constitute evidence for God's existence? Gods hand coming out of the heavens for the world to see.
Atheist: A universal movement. A stoppage of the planet. Nothing earthly. nice.
Matt: If that were to happen, would you conclude there was a god? Couldn't it be explained in other ways? No. I would not conclude there was a god till I met him or her.
Atheist: I would of course doubt it at first. I would look for an explanation... And for something like that I would probably find no reasonable explanation..
Matt: If you had could not find one, what would you conclude? Would you conclude that there is a god? or that you simply don't have all the facts?
Atheist: You never have all of the facts... Reasonable assumptions, remember?
Matt: Then you could not safely conclude it was the hand of God, could you?
Atheist: Nope. that would be the only explanation that I could think of that would have the three means, opportunity. (forget motive) [I did not understand him here...]
Matt: Then you couldn't know anything for sure, right? That is, if you don't have all the facts, all of them.
Atheist: Haven't we already agreed you can never have all the facts?
Matt: What you are telling me is that you have no real way of proving or disproving God. So then, doesn't it come down to faith based upon evidence? I have evidence.... You can't have evidence. Of course you will claim something silly like weather, trees or people. Maybe even resort to the BuyBull but we all know that is smoke and mirrors.
Atheist: I have to go. Friends just arrived. Can we finish this later?
Matt: If you want....
I'm not sure how it went with this atheist. But I hope some seeds were planted.
They weren't I am sure he left irritated and frustrated with your complete lack of logic and intelligent debate. Talking in circles NEVER got anyone anywhere. Enjoy spinning your wheels Matt.
I will be following up with more posts and hopefully I will get the opportunity to debate with this fellow soon......