Summaries from online forum debates I've enjoyed.

Atheist1: Today's topic is God's nose and the contents held within.
Atheist2: Great! I've always wondered if God has boogers...
Theist: Blasphemy! god's nose would be perfect and not contain any boogers!
Atheist2: But hear me out... if it did, would he have to pick them?
Atheist1: Gentleman, please! Let's try to stay civl.
Theist: All right... I'll entertain the question of God's boogers.
Atheist2: So, maybe God wouldn't need to pick his boogers, ya know... since he doesn't need to breathe?
Theist: That's just silly! If God doesn't need to breathe, why does he even have a nose?
Atheist2: Exactly! See? The tapestry we've woven into this image of God just unravels at the slightest discussion...
Atheist1: Hmm... So, God wouldn't need a heart or lungs then?
Atheist2: Yes! Or a body of any kind!
Atheist1: So what's left of God?
Theist: That's it! I'm outta here! And I'm taking my concept of God with me!


Atheist: If God is all loving, he would see to it that no suffering existed in the world.
Christian: God didn't put suffering in the world, man did.
Atheist: Did man create the hurricane that destroyed New Orleans, or the tsunami that pummeled so much of India?
Christian: (Annoted) You know what I mean.
Atheist: Actually, I don't, but for the sake of the argument let's move on. You are saying that God gave us free will, and because of free will, we introduce suffering, right?
Christian: (self-satisfied) Yes!
Atheist: So, why didn't God create man such that he has free will but wouldn't create suffering?
Christian: How can you do that? You can't have free will without suffering, otherwise it wouldn't be free will.
Atheist: I have no idea how to do that, but I'm not God. If God can do anything then he can create free will without suffering.
Christian: How could he? It's not possible.
Atheist: Then you're saying there is something that God can't do, so he isn't all powerful.
Christian: (stymied)


Atheist: You say that God is everywhere and in everything, right?
Christian: Yes.
Atheist: That means he can also see the future and has a plan for all of us.
Christian: Most certainly.
Atheist: Then why did he give us free will if we can't determine our pre-determined futures? That contradicts the basic premise of free will.
Christian: No, you don't understand. God is outside of our time and our reality.
Atheist: How can God be outside of our time and reality, and be everywhere? That's just another contradiction.
Christian: He is both at the same time. Through him all things are possible.
Atheist: Okay, then maybe you can answer this question for me. Can God be in the presence of sin?
Christian: No. He even had to avert his eyes when his own Son was on the cross.
Atheist: Then he's not omnipotent or omnipresent. No matter which line of argument you take, one of the omni's has to go.
Christian: But he is all of that and more. Nothing happens without God intending it to happen.
Atheist: So what about the six million Jews who were killed during the Holocaust? Wait, that example is probably too in keeping with what God did to millions of people in the Old Testament. So rather, what about a father who rapes his baby daughter?
Christian: God works in mysterious ways. We cannot know or understand his will.
Atheist: Unlike you, I am not comfortable with accepting that the evil in the world is meant to be there or is "right" in any way. I would rather take the road which is paved with logic and evidence rather than the mythical, unprovable route. If God is in everything, and nothing happens without his intention, then evil is a direct offshoot from God, which means he isn't omnibenevolent. If evil is from free will, God is not omnipotent, as I've already shown. If God can't be around sin, he isn't omnipresent, and we can then assume that evil does not happen with his intention, in which case he's not omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent. Either way the existence of a benevolent creator is flawed simply because his creations are flawed.
Atheist2: It says in scripture that god is not omniscient or omnipresent.
Genesis 11:5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building.
Genesis 18:21 ...I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.
1 Kings 19:11-12 The LORD said, "Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by." Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.
Christian: That doesn't prove anything. It's just symbolic.
Atheist2: You can't say that those lines are allegorical just because it suits you. If you can accept that those verses are metaphorical then that means the rest of the Bible can be too. If you don't take every detail of the Bible literally then the whole thing falls apart. The Arc, Jesus, Adam and Eve, the Commandments. Everything.


1. God is supernatural by definition
2. There can be no scientific evidence for the supernatural, if there were it would be natural.
3. That for which there is no scientific evidence cannot be logically assumed to exist.
4. Therefore god's existence cannot logically be assumed to exist.

Views: 18


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service