Do theists arguments ever change?

[LoneMateria]

Is it just me or do theists use the same arguments that have been rebutted over and over again?  Today I was going through the New Wire at infidels.org and came across this article.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17267 With the title "New astrophysical discoveries leave little to no room for Atheism, expert says".  Okay I realize that this is a catholic news site but seriously why use the same arguments that have been rebutted, pass them off as a scientific discovery and say shit like:

Theism, in fact,  can be better explained by contemporary science and modern philosophy better than ever before,  but particularly interesting is what is happening in the field of astrophysics ... to the point that  I can't imagine why agnosticism and Atheism are still popular,” Fr. Spitzer said.

Theism can be explained by science and philosophy.  Philosophy yes you don't need evidence to support your claim you just need backwards logic and poof theism.  Science ... really can I see some evidence ... no ... why not you said it was science ... oh none exists okay.  The part that really burns my ass is the last part, why is agnosticism and atheism so popular?  Um... maybe because we are people who don't make up answers, we say we don't know and move on instead of making up shit, then being forced to make up more shit to make the first shit sound good, repeat forever.  Maybe atheism and agnosticism wouldn't be popular if you would present actual evidence to back up your made up claims.

Why is it that the arguments for the existence of a deity don't change until we get to the point whenever someone says the argument they are laughed at?  Oh the universe had a beginning so theres a god, oh our laws say matter cannot be created or destroyed therefore a god made them (non sequitur), oh theism explains everything why don't you atheists just accept our explanation?  Seriously is wrong with these people?

[Ninteen45]

That same basic arguement never changes, but how they deliver it does.

[LoneMateria]

That same basic arguement never changes, but how they deliver it does.

Why do you think that is?  Are they being intellectually dishonest or willingly ignorant?  Or is it something else?  I never understand why people put so much stock into these arguments, have them thrown back at them .... and then they still use it.

[Reginus]

That same basic arguement never changes, but how they deliver it does.

[strike:3vraqueo]Whats the same basic argument?[/strike:3vraqueo]

[LoneMateria]

That same basic arguement never changes, but how they deliver it does.

Whats the same basic argument?

Look at the article.  Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.  The arguments are then considered evidence (Very common theme for theists btw).  Assertions, appeal to authority (and the authority figure has no background in what they are appealing to), failure to grasp science, failure to understand laws of probability, and non sequitur analyses are the same fallacies they have been using for years to back up their flawed arguments.  This article was just an example that no matter how many times an argument has been refuted it is still used.

Arguments still in use today include:
The Cosmological Argument
Fined Tuned Argument
(The 2 in this article)
Pascal's Wager
Ontological Argument
Transcendental argument
Argument from design
Moral Argument
Anthropic argument
Teleological Argument
Argument from incomplete knowledge
Argument from Laws

and the list goes on and on.  These arguments have been used forever, been refuted, and are still being used.  These are all fallacious arguments and are often "backed up" by even more fallacies, other bad arguments, poor reasoning skills and outright lies (on occasion [and even more when it comes to certain apologists like Ray Comfort and Pat Robertson]).

[Reginus]

Ooops misread. srry

[Renegnicat]

It's so simple. All of those arguments point to something existing that is "god", without actually giving any characteristics to god. These arguments have to be the ones used, because these are the only arguments that can justify anything at all existing.

Think about it, if theists could actually settle on a common set of characteristics that "god" has, then it would be the easiest thing in the world to see if he exists. You wouldn't need any types of arguments. Just see if the set of characteristics exists as a bundle, and you'll know.

The amount of arguments theists are able to make to back up their assertion of god are limited to arguments that support his existence without supporting the characteristics they associate with him. After all, it's pretty easy to refute basic christianity on it's actual characteristics.

All you have to do is see if the characteristics that christianity associates with god, "exists". And guess what, they don't. Everything we have suggests that the universe is a lifeless vacuum, DEVOID OF ANY TRUE LIFE!!!  

[Godschild]

To all who read this I'm not going to try to prove God exist simply because I can't. So you want have to hear the same old arguments from me. What I will say is like you I did not believe in God until He proved Himself to me and when He did that opened up a door that I chose to go thru and see what He was all about and what He might have to offer. I liked what He showed me and so He keep revealing thing to me until I was able to understand His simple plan for salvation and I accepted His Son Jesus as my savior and ever sense He has opened up so much more. By his grace my life has new meaning and I can truely live free. I will say this though that unless you do as I did you will never be able to understand anything about God.

[AlP]

Fixed:

To all who read this, I'm not going to try to prove Chocolate Cake exists simply because I can't. So you won't have to hear the same old arguments from Me. What I will say is, like you, I did not believe in Chocolate Cake until It proved Itself to Me and when It did, that opened up a Door that I chose to go through and I saw what It was all about and what It might have to offer. I liked what It showed me and It keeps revealing things to Me and now I am able to understand Its simple plan for salvation and I accept Its Son Chocolate Brownie as my savior and since then It has opened up so much more. By His [ed: Jeez you missed one] grace My Life has new meaning and I can truly Live free. I will say this though; unless you do as I did you will never be able to understand anything about Chocolate Cake.

[Godschild]

You guys must think your funny, to me I see you as childish, inmature and not able to respond to a Christians point of view. The last time I was on this forum there were many with whom I could talk to intellegently where did they go,so I can have some mature and intellegent discussions. Did they move on because you guys were acting so childish.Now though I do know who not to take seriously thanks for the heads up.

[AlP]

You guys must think your funny, to me I see you as childish, inmature and not able to respond to a Christians point of view. The last time I was on this forum there were many with whom I could talk to intellegently where did they go,so I can have some mature and intellegent discussions. Did they move on because you guys were acting so childish.Now though I do know who not to take seriously thanks for the heads up.

You need to take the sample population into account. There's one asshole substituting Chocolate Cake for God. That doesn't mean the whole forum will.

Edit: I forgot to capitalize Asshole. It should read thus:
You need to take the sample population into account. There's one Asshole substituting Chocolate Cake for God. That doesn't mean the whole forum will.

[Whitney]

I could talk to intellegently where did they go,so I can have some mature and intellegent discussions.

The last time you were on the forum you respected the members so much that you left randomly.  I think you need to learn how to figure out when people aren't trying to be serious.  Maybe if you say something worthy of a thoughtful response you'll receive one.

[Godschild]

The last time you were on the forum you respected the members so much that you left randomly. I think you need to learn how to figure out when people aren't trying to be serious. Maybe if you say something worthy of a thoughtful response you'll receive one

I'm not sure what you mean. I left because my job became more demanding of my time and before one knows it much time has slipped by. It was also becoming  

[Whitney]

Godschild, as discussed in numerous other threads here, there are not only many reasons to think your god is fake (even if a god does exist) but also to think that your god is evil.  If I have no evidence of some sea creature that has not been discovered then I won't believe that it exists, once it has been discovered I will believe it does exist.....same standards apply to god.

I have said on this forum and elsewhere many times that I would accept a solid philosophical proof of god as enough reason to become a deist....but such a proof does not exist; they all have problems (which is what this thread is about...kinda)

Maybe you should ask "God" to help you learn how to pay attention and understand where people are coming from instead of trying to pretend like we have views which mirror your perceptions of what a heathen should be.......

[LoneMateria]

... It was also becoming  

Way to try and make your god impervious to logic, reason, critical thinking and evidence.  I applaud your poor job.  You have to make many assumptions to get here so lets explore them.  Omitting the obvious assumption that there is a god.  First assumption God is a guy, Second he is all knowing, third there are other sciences (do you know science is?  Its a process not a device), fourth you assume he is undetectable by our current methods, and fifth he wants to remain undetected.  Thats as batshit crazy as saying God put fossils on earth to test our faith.  Think about this, what if there is no God wouldn't that be a much simpler solution then your five assumptions in your poor argument?  Occam's razor at its finest, remove all the unnecessary crap until you are left with the most basic solution that corresponds to evidence.  There is no God.