Devastating Responses for Creationist Twits
In arguing down ignorant creationists, I've noticed that the vast majority of their arguments fall into a very few categories. There are perhaps six of them. There are doubtless more than this, but the run of the mill ignorant creationist is only parroting what it perceives as good arguments. These are going to be warmed-over Hovind, possibly even Ray Comfort. The challenge sometimes lies in pigeonholing the argument correctly so that you can deliver the appropriate devastating response.
Note that there is no possible argument that christains can make which holds up. They simply haven't got any, and ultimately, as much as they would like to prevaricate, their pathetic whimperings wither away in the face of overwhelming physical proof.
* Pascal's Wager. Even the real idiots come up with this one, and in fact it seems relatively common among them. The answer to this is to simply ask them what happens if THEY are wrong about Poseidon. By making this argument, they trap themselves in a very bad spot: there are tens of thousands of little gods and legends, so their possibility of being right is statistically tiny.
Another response is to point out the fact that they are engaging in fear tactics. Point out that you don't believe in their little hippie god any more than you believe in unicorns. Ask them if they believe in vampires, or if they think vampires are silly. Tell them that the reason they don't believe in unicorns and vampires is because there is no physical evidence, no shred of proof, which is precisely why religion is stupid.
* Argument from Superior Numbers: There are many, many christians. Therefore they must be right. Right?
Wrong. This argument doesn't hold any water at all, for obvious reasons. Were they right that the world was flat? Were they right to burn witches at the stake? Are the pedophile priests right, because there appear to be more of them than non-pedophile priests? Are catholics right in Rome and Morons right in Provo, Utah? Does this work by local numerical superiority, and if so, are atheists right in Sweden and Norway?
Could Varg Vikernes sometimes be right?
* Argument from Morality: There can be no morality without religion, they'll claim. The answer to this is to simply ask them if they need an imaginary friend to be afraid of to prevent them from killing. Point out how much this frightens you, and that you don't rape and murder even though you DON'T have an imaginary friend. Point out how despicable it is that the christian is implying that he would murder without the threat of hell.
What the hell kind of morality is that?
* Argument from Utilitarianism: It's good to believe in christ because of heaven, or possibly because of TEH AWESOMENESS we get on earth from feeling god's love. They will often try to guilt-trip you by implying that it's mean to steal peoples' faith away. The counter-argument to these canards is to simply ask if it's better to believe in Santa Claus. Or that you have a billion dollars in the bank. Could you just believe that you are wildly wealthy? Wouldn't you be happy?
Problem is, a person can't just adopt a belief in something. And rational people don't believe things with zero evidence.
* Argument from selective skepticism: They are much, MUCH too sharp in the head to be deceived by any of this science nonsense. Evolution is a common one, and there are really too many responses to this (billions upon billions). Another one is carbon dating, or some obscure point about some backwater of quantum physics or something that the christian has read the wikipedia article on and thinks he's discovered something profound.
Don't be baited. Point out that they are now trying to assail physics, or geology, or whatever, and that all these fields support each other. Point out that if they have some new information about how physics is wrong, they should be presenting papers at the National Academy of Science so that they can get the grant money and give it to starving kids in Africa.
But most importantly, point out that they are operating under a double standard of proof. THEY ARE THE ONES advancing a collection of some of the most ridiculous propositions ever-- miracles, virgin births, little raped jesus and the Talking Snake.
Since they refuse to offer any evidence whatsoever for any of this pile of stinking bullshit, and have been unable to obtain any for TWO THOUSAND YEARS, they have no leg to stand on WHATSOEVER when trying to assail fields of science for which there is massive and overwhelming evidence.
Since these dumbfucks will not see reason, just refuse to argue the subject of science at all. Point out that it has physical evidence for every single point that it makes, and that until they can provide physical evidence for THEIR ridiculous beliefs, they have no business trying to be skeptical about anything at all.
Point out that they belong under lock and key in mental institutions with the other schizophrenics who hear voices.
I'm interested in hearing about any other archetypal arguments that people run into, and devastating responses for them.