Fiercest opponents in religious/scientific debates?

[Mastermind]

I find Deists the hardest to tackle in my opinion. They are like Atheists, but I have a much harder time attacking the logic behind their morality since they also believe in God.

[Anonymous]

It can be difficult....I just interrogate them about their God and then if the believe in evolution i usually pin em down saying why God would do that if he can create the Universe. The answers i get aren't very good.

However Deists who believe in ID, now that I imagine can be tough...although I have yet to meet one
I imagine i would just interrogate them...their view of God and his attributes are all random really, no two deists will answer in the same or even close to the same manner.

[Mastermind]

"Nah its not too hard....I just interrogate them about their God and then if the believe in evolution i usually pin em down saying why God would do that if he can create the Universe. The answers i get aren't very good.

However Deists who believe in ID, now that I imagine can be tough...although I have yet to meet one I imagine i would just interrogate them...their view of God and his attributes are all random really, no two deists will answer in the same or even close to the same manner."

That's what makes it so difficult. The hardest people to argue with are deists and atheists who have come to the conclusion that there is no absolute good or evil(as this is the logical conclusion). At this point, there isn't much i can do.

[Jac3510]

Actually, atheists, to me, are the easiest to debate. You have to first recognize the fact that you aren't going to change their mind. They have a belief that God does not exist, and it is a very irrational belief. Therefore, rationality typically isn't going to change their mind.

I just lay out a "transcendental" version of the moral argument to every atheist I ever speak to in person. The classical version of the argument asks us to account for the cause of morality. That can be debated all day long, and it gets immediately into evolution, altruism, herd instincts, etc. Better is this version, which argues the authority of morality. Why should I believe it? Why should I obey it? What authority does it have?

Morality has absolutely NO basis in authority WHATSOEVER without the existence of a God. NONE. There is, therefore, only two scenarios:

1) God exists, and morality has authority.
2) God does not exist, and morality has no authority.

For the atheist that has determined that all values are relative, then simply ask him if it's wrong to rape children. :p All people believe in right and wrong. Further, if there are people listening, they will think the person arguing that there is no such thing as right and wrong is an utter moron.

That said, I have the biggest problem with agnostics. Make a decision. They hind behind their, "Well I just don't KNOW." The problem with belief is that everyone requires different amounts of evidence to believe someone, and a true agnostic cannot believe because he will always raise the level of evidence required. Those people you just present the truth to and let God handle it, I suppose . . .

*shrug*