What's your best counter-argument?

Don't tell me the scientists haven't discovered the rain storehouses yet! They need to get even more powerful telescopes...

we arent as old as dad so we dont remember it fall down go boom

Literalism is pretty easy to undermine with the bible itself

When they use the inevitable "but that's the old testament, Jesus fixed it" card, ask them if they support homosexual rights. All of the bible passages against homosexuality come from the old testament, in particular Leviticus.

I would ask why God would heal people of disease by prayer but doesn't do the same for amputees. Nothing can really compare to the questions you posed however.

In general, I'm not a huge fan of the amputee argument because it never says anywhere in the bible that god is supposed to heal them and I accept answers like "They are amputees for a reason" aka the "god works in mysterious ways" argument. Those are all fine with me.
I only responded with the amputee argument as part of a larger context like "It's funny how the miracles performed are always invisible and could have happened through natural means, unlike amputees for example."

Having a discussion with this guy was like playing chess against someone who marches forward with all his pawns. Even though you know it's a stupid move, it's still fairly difficult to counter because you've never played (/experience) against this tactic before.

I wonder why he doesn't care to do it now?

Or, "If somebody ordered his troops to go into a city and kill all the women and children, should they be punished?" If they say yes, then remind them that God ordered such acts several times in the Bible.

Yesterday I was shopping in the city with my girlfriend when a young gentleman approached us wanting to spread the word of God. We had a chat for about 20-25 minutes and overall it was a pretty good & gentle discussion.

Personally I never refrain from such conversations because I think it gives a good insight in how the "other" side's mind operates.
I've seen plenty of arguments, including a lot from this forum, that prepare you for such talks but this fellow was all shades of crazy that I haven't seen even on this forum. I have to say he was extremely polite though.
I'll give you a brief synopsis of the conversation:

Basically his opening line/argument when he approached us was about "a purpose in life".
That god gives you heaven and atheism gives you nothing and that somehow proves God exists. Of course things like "wishful thinking", "why does there have to be a purpose" and "we simply can't be 100% sure without evidence" were mentioned but he was a full 100% sure god existed, not a 99.9%, I did ask.

A large part that followed was about "wanting evidence before I base my life upon a belief". His main argument was that you won't find God unless you accept him first. To me that sounds like: You have to smoke pot before you see hallucinations, but I didn't tell him that. We've also talked a little about Bigfoot and the flying spaghetti monster and why he also first wants evidence before he believes in those but somehow he didn't seem to get the contradiction with his own argument. /face palm

When the conversation shifted towards evolution his response was simple yet mind shattering effective: "I don't know". I kid you not. He admitted he knew little to nothing about evolution and every single question I asked him was replied with "I don't know".

Seriously, how do you begin to make a point when someone else finds "I don't know" a valid way to dismiss the whole argument, stop thinking about it and act like it was never brought up...

At least here on the forum people (those who respond at least) come up with some kind of answer, which you can then respond to and refute if it's wrong. I've even had a Jehovah witnesses at my door that have read the Origin of Species and it allows for great dialogue. This guy however dismissed science in general and expected others to believe him why evolution is wrong without him knowing anything about it in the first place.

Furthermore he didn't even believe in micro-evolution. I've grown accustomed that even the most die-hard creationists here believe in micro-evolution because it's practically undeniable (or so I thought) when you look into it with clear cases of mutations in every day life like Swine flu for example. But alas, he clearly stated he didn't belief in micro-evolution and once again every follow-up question was answered with "I don't know".

We've even had the segment from the Atheist Experience regarding Hell. It's about a couple of simple questions:
- Do you believe hell exists? (His answer: Yes)
- Do you believe God sends people there (Yes)
- Do you believe Apostasy - not believing in god - is the one true unforgivable sin (Once again: a definite yes)

So the important follow-up question: "Do you think me and my girlfriend *deserve* to go to Hell?"

And just like the caller in the Atheist Experience his response was the same: "It's not up to me to judge about that".
I find it funny that most people can't give their own opinion when answering this question. As Matt Dillahunty perfectly said it: "That tells me everything I need to know, that right inside of you you're dealing with a moral struggle where you are beginning to realize that you are more moral than the god they forced you to belief".
And yes both his parents were religious as well, I've asked. Although in his defense he said he made the decision himself when he was 8.

Anyway, I was wondering what you (if in disagreement with that fellow I met) would have said.

1) What would be your main scientific/evolution counter-argument to bring up?
2) And when the person denies all science, what would be your main non-scientific counter-argument?

Think about it, I hope to see some good replies.

- Ectezus

Make sure he doesn't have a Schofield Bible with him before you ask --- or that he doesn't know Dispensation Theology.