Ran across a few more today.  A whole bunch on relativism can be found here.

Naturalist:  "Nature will explain everything."
Christian:  "Why?"

Relativist:  "All truth is relative."
Christian:  "If all truth is relative, then the statement 'All truth is relative' would be absolutely true." 

Relativist:  "There are no absolute truths."
Christian:  "If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including what you said. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism."

Relativist:  "No one can know anything for sure."
Christian:  "If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure which is self defeating."

Relativist:  "What is true for you is not true for me."
Christian:  "If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?"
Relativist:  "Um...no?"
Christian:  "Then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false."
Relativist:  "Then my answer is yes!"
Christian:  "Then relativism is false."
Relativist:  "Wait, what?"

Biblioskeptic:  "Scripture has been re-written and changed and altered so many times that the Bible is an unreliable source of evidence.  First the proof must come, then the trust in Scripture."
Christian:  "Really?  So what's the proof for the statement you just made?  Since there is no proof for what you just said the statement is self-refuting."  (thank you AiG)

Agnostic:  "I believe in nothing, therefore I offend nobody."
Christian:  "I believe in something, therefore you offend me."

In other words, in regards to the Emerging Church movement, if they don’t believe anything, they can’t offend anybody.  But this philosophy stings my heart.

Absurdist:  "Everything is meaningless!"
Christian:  "You don't believe that."
Absurdist:  "Yes I do."
Christian:  "No you don't"
Absurdist:  "Yes I do."
Christian:  "No you don't."
Absurdist:  "Who are you to tell me I don't?"
Christian:  "I assume that you assume that what you just said was meaningful.  If what you just said is meaningful then everything is not meaningless.  On the other hand, if everything is meaningless then what you said is meaningless too.  You basically said nothing."

Nihilist:  "Everything is meaningless, but you have to make sense and defend Christianity."
Christian:  "Why?  If life is meaningless, why should my philosophy be meaningful?  Moreso, why should yours?" (thank you Ravi Zacharias (YouTube))

Atheist:  "There is to much evil in this world; therefore, there cannot be a God!"
Christian:  "If there is such a thing as evil, aren't you assuming there is such a thing as good?"
Atheist:  "I guess so."
Christian:  "If you accept the existence of goodness, do you affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil?"
Atheist:  "I guess."
Christian:  "But if you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver."
Christian:  "That, however, is who you are trying to disprove!"
Christian:  "For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law."
Christian:  "If there is no moral law, there is no good."
Christian:  "If there is no good, there is no evil. What then is your question?"
Atheist:  "Uh...."
Christian:  "You've smuggled in your assumptions.  You've just bought into my worldview."
Atheist:  "I guess so!" (thank you Ravi Zacharias (YouTube)) 

Non-Christian:  "Religion is a crutch for the weak."
Christian:  "Why, then, do you prefer to remain unstable?"

Non-Christian:  "Religion is a crutch for the weak."
Christian:  "What does that say to those who kick the crutch out from under the weak?"

Although the second response is legitimate, I think I like the first one better because it points to the cross.  We are all weak.  Every one of us.  Ravi Zacharias, speaking to the LDS, said, "When you get the Son, you get all of the components of meaning in life."  Without the Son, we have nothing.

Materialist:  "From all evidences, matter is all there is."
Christian:  "The act of reasoning is a nonmaterial function.  By reasoning, you've assumed the very thing you wish to deny.  Your statement is self-refuting!"

(Thank you Creation Safaris.  Also, thank you Werner Gitt for your communication theory -- communication requires a nonmaterial, mental source.)

Atheist:  "How dare you corrupt our children with your Christian views!"
Christian:  "Besides the fallacy of emotive language, on what basis do you declare what we do is good or bad?  You have none.  You are borrowing from Christian views to declare it wrong.  Your statement is self-refuting."

Buddhist:  "Desire causes suffering."  (Buddha's doctrine.)
Buddhist:  "Every human being has the potential to create happiness."  (Actual quote from Dalai Lama.)
Christian:  "If one sets out to resist desire, why would one ever then entertain the desire for happiness, and thus work to create it?"

(Source) 

Hindu:  "The material universe may appear to exist but actually is only Maya (illusion)."
Christian:  "How can I ever test the truth of such a proposition within that illusion?"

(Source:  Letter from a Christian to a Hindu)

This might seem silly, but I think it's germain:

Someone once asked me "Jess, can God make a rock so big He couldn't move it."  My answer "Why whould He want to do that?"
 

Haha, that's an old question, but GREAT answer, Jess!!!!  :D 

I think the technical response is that God cannot/will not break the laws of logic, particularly the Law of Non-contradiction because He is a God of logic.  That means God cannot create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it.  God also cannot cause Himself to not exist.  God cannot create a one-ended stick.  And, of course, God cannot lie.  He simply cannot because it goes against His very nature.  But your answer suffices perfectly!  It exposes the absurdity of the questioner's questions.

Hey, post more when you think of them!  :D 

Unchurched:  "I've been let down by so many people:  my ex-husband, my best friend, my oldest son, my boyfriend...."
Christian:  "I know someone who will never let you down."

This one-liner came up last night in my men's study.  The first line is a paraphrase of a real conversation of a real person.  The second line is what should have been said but wasn't.  Such a simple exchange is quite complex:  (1) it is non-threatening, (2) it speaks of positive personal experience which can be recommended, (3) the implicit absolute claim does not offend someone's realtivistic/pluralistic philosophies (at least initially), and most importantly (4) it points to the Cross.

Unchurched:  "I've been let down by so many people:  my ex-husband, my best friend, my oldest son, my boyfriend...."
Christian:  "I know someone who will never let you down."

I think I'd state it a little differently: "Jesus would love a chance to show you He won't let you down."

It's just a stylistic difference, though. 

Non-Christian Friend: "Do you really give a tithe?"

Me: "Yep.  Someone's got to pay Him!"  Then I explained I'm giving money: to God's work; that God, being God, doesn't need my money; and that its an easy way for me to serve others. 

Evolutionist:  "We evolved from bacteria."
Christian:  "Is that a rational belief?"
Evolutionist:  "Yeah."
Christian:  "Are bacteria rational thinkers?"
Evolutionist:  "No."
Christian:  "Beliefs that were caused by non-rational entities cannot be rationally justified, therefore your statement is meaningless, and unjustifiable."  (Thank you C.S. Lewis in "Miracles")

Atheist:  "In case you haven't heard, the God theory is not falsifiable."
Christian:  "What does that say about someone who's built a theory on the negative of an unfalsifiable theory?"

Moral Relativist:  "There are no moral absolutes.  Civil law isn't about morality.  We are individuals and enter a contract with each other for mutual security and to prevent taking advantage of others."
Christian:  "Careful!  That itself is a moral statement.  It assumes that mutual security is morally superior and taking advantage of others is morally inferior."
Moral Relativist:  "That's not a moral statement at all!  Any society that doesn't base its laws on that statement will fail."
Christian:  "That is also a moral statement because it designates what causes societies to fail based on nescessity, and posits a stable society is something we ought to aim for!"

Zen Buddhist:  "To comprehend life we must abandon logic." (T.D. Suzuki)
Christian:  "But you just used logic to tell me that."

Zen Buddhist:  "To achieve enlightenment, one must deny selfish desires."
Christian:  "If enlightenment is indeed the goal of Zen, then one's desire to achieve this should prove problematic."

Christian:  "These days, God does not use prophets."
Christian:  "Oh?  You've received this new revelation from God prophetically?"  (Sorry, friend, I just had to!)

Christian:  "I prayed and God healed me!"
Atheist:  "That was just a coincidence!"
Christian:  "That doesn't make any sense.  A coincidence can never cause something.  What exactly was the cause of my healing if not God answering my prayer?"

Atheist:  "The universe exploded into being by chance."
Christian:  "There's not a chance that happened.  Chance is not an active causal agent.  Chance has no power to influence anything.  Chance is not a thing.  It is nothing.  What you essentially said is the universe exploded into being by nothing."  (A book on this one:  "Not a Chance" by R.C. Sproul)

Atheist:  "God kills innocent people, therefore God does not exist."
Christian:  "How can God kill someone if He doesn't exist?" (actual question posed to a six-year-old and her answer)

Christian:  "Evil cannot exist without an absolute moral Lawgiver."
Atheist:  "That's a deus ex machina appeal, a copout."
Christian:  "Do you have any solid alternative?"
Atheist:  "In-group morality.  This came about through the evolutionary processes of Inclusive Fitness and Riciprocal Altruism."
Christian:  "But the evidence for this is shaky and there is no guarantee this will ever be an accurate explanation.  Given that atheists have spent the last 150 years searching for an explanation to morality, it seems to me you are appealing to a deus ex machina yourself by saying, 'we don't know where morality came from, but it's not from God.'"

(Adapted from a chat room experience of mine.  I wish this could be made more succinct; I've exhausted my writing skills.  By the way, invoking a Lawgiver is not exactly a deus ex machina, it's a logical requirement.)

Anarchist:  "You gotta do what you wanna do!"
Christian:  "What if I don't wanna do what you told me to do?  Do I then gotta do what I don't wanna do?"

I think I got that right... Makes my head hurt parsing that one out!  From this previous blog of mine.

That "you gotta do what you wanna do" line got me thinking some more.... 

Do I gotta do what I don't wanna do (like laws or chores)?  -> Gotta do what you gotta do (tautology).

If I gotta do what I wanna do and what I don't wanna do, then I gotta do everything!  (So then, what were you saying?) 

Should I do what you want me to do (like obey your mantra)?  ->  Gotta do what you say.

If I don't wanna obey you, am I forced to disobey you and do what I don't wanna do?  If I wanna disobey you by not doing what I wanna do, then how can I begin?  It seems if I do what I don't wanna do, I do it out of want to disobey you, and therefore follow your mantra anyway. 

It seems the mantra is some kind of self-evident truth (or tautology), akin to "God cannot lie" -- whatever God speaks, it is; if God says the sky is green, that's what color the sky is.  Jonathan Edwards on free will introduced the notion of "motives" by saying we choose one thing over another because our mind chooses what it thinks is best.  It seems we can do only what we choose to do ("wanna do"), and cannot do what we choose not to do. 

But the added imperetive ("gotta do") in the mantra is not only unnescessary, but fallacious, for "gotta" is a strong motivator for changing the "wanna."  I dunno, whaddya think?

Thanks, Hudnall!

Here's another I just ran across:

Relativist:  "Improvable theories, like untested theories, are just that; mere theories and/or religion." (actual quote)
Christian:  "Is your statement provable?  If it is not, is must be religion."

Darwinist:  "Darwin's idea eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways."
Christian:  "If so, have you realized that Darwin's idea eats through everything, even your own rationality?  What claim have you on the ability to think rationally if you are just a collection of random mistakes?"

The Darwinist quote is an actual quote from Daniel Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea."  You can't make up comedy this good, folks!  The next one is from Darwinist Nicholas Humphrey, and the one after is from Darwinist Scott Atran.

Darwinist:  "Since belief in special creation leads to biologically fitter lives, it must have evolved.  Thus, one of the particular ways in which consciousness could have won out in evolution by natural selection could have been precisely by encouraging us to believe that we have not evolved by natural selection."
Christian:  "If you really believe this line of argument, you would abandon natural selection and embrace special creation.  What, then, were you saying?"

Darwinist:  "Nothing indicates that people who believe that life arose by chance also believe that morality is haphazard."
Christian:  "If morality is not haphazard, what is directing the undirected process?  Could not replaying the tape end up with opposite moralities?"

This is GOLD!

Dawkins:  When you say faith is rational and evidence-based, if that were true it wouldn't need to be faith, would it?  If there were evidence, why would you need to call it faith?  We only need to use the word "faith" when there is no evidence.
Lennox:  No, not at all.  I presume you've got faith in your wife?  Is there any evidence for that?
Dawkins:  Yes, plenty of evidence! 
Lennox:  Hmm!
Dawkins:  I--

At that point, the audience laughed and Dawkins' thoughts were interrupted.  Dialog appears around 29:00 on this debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox.

Evolutionist:  Only the fittest survive.
Christian:  That's a tautology.
Evolutionist:  What?
Christian:  Who survive?
Evolutionist:  Those who are the fittest.
Christian:  Who are the fittest?
Evolutionist:  Well, obviously, those who survive.
Christian:  There you go.  You've said nothing.

I've been keeping a keen eye out for more of these debate one-liners, but I keep running into ones that are already represented above, in some fashion or other.  I may have run out.  Maybe I should re-post these in a coherent blog....

Darwinist:  "Religious people have self-control, therefore religious people are more fit."
Christian:  "So, is it a lack of self-control that is causing Darwinists to say stupid things?"

Notice the Darwinist is asking how religion evolved, not whether religion evolved.  Here's a good response:

Christian:  "Are you just saying this just because you are a sinner looking to rationalize your evil ways?"
Darwinist:  "What evil ways?"
Christian:  "Why, the evil of contradicting yourself."
Darwinist:  "What?"
Christian:  "Right.  You said religious people tend to have longer lives.  How does a young boy blowing up a school bus have a longer life?  How could that evolve?" 
Christian:  Diverge temporarily into a discussion of why a theory that explains opposite things explains nothing at all. 
Christian:  "And come to think of it, if religion is a positive thing, what religion are you?"
Darwinist:  Mumbles that he is an atheist. 
Christian:  "Then according to your own theory, you are less fit.  In fact, you look kind of depressed and delinquent.  Better get on a fitness program.  Why not make a resolution to get some self-control and righteousness in your life instead of making up stories out of your own imagination?  Come on, I’ll take you to church where we can learn about Truth that doesn’t evolve."

Thank you Creation-Evolution Headlines!

Bahnsen is a Christian.  Stein is an atheist.  Both are in a cross-examination portion of a formal debate.  Below is an exerpt of this, with Bahnsen examining Stein.  Midway it switches.  Read and laugh:

Bahnsen:  Are [the laws of logic] material in nature?
Stein:  How could a law be material?
B:  That's the question I'm going to ask you.
Audience:  [Laughs]
S:  I would say no.
Moderator:  [Ushers an exchange in cross-examination]
S:  Dr. Bahnsen, would you call God material or immaterial?
B:  Immaterial.
S:  What is something that's immaterial?
B:  Something not extended in space.
S:  Can you give me any other example, other than God, that's immaterial?
B:  The laws of logic.
Audience:  [Laughs]

In general, I would not advise using these debate one-liners with real people.  The collection here is a combination of (1) humor and (2) instruction; the audience is the Christian. 

Although some may be called strawmen (a silly argument you say somebody holds but in reality is more complicated), some isolated individuals do actually hold them and have spoken them, to which a one-line response may be dealt; knowledgeable non-Christians would not use many of the lines above, so a matched response from above would not be appropriate.

Re-reading my list, I identified a few that I should probably remove.   They are malformed one-liners I have never actually heard spoken by their proponents but have heard them rip them apart and chastise the one who invoked it.  Some skip a few logical steps to keep the exchange brief, which may be interpreted poorly, thus requiring compounded explanation.

But I've taken pains to record actual conversations, and I reference them when I can.  Not all are real conversations, but many are (the Clinton one is a good example).

But there is an instructional aspect to it.   They highlight, through example, many self-refuting philosophies that real people actually hold.  For instance, logical positivism reigned supreme in the sciences for decades (and still occasionally crops up in 2009); perhaps had someone voiced the Christian one-liner (above) this would not have held for as long.  Christians need to be equipped to recognize bankrupt philosophies (Col 2:8).

Have I successfully used any of these?  Short answer:  no.  The reason is that one-liners generally are not very useful in a real arena.  Good for instruction, bad for conversation.  But I have successfully used the concepts taught here to show the errors of people's philosophies.  That takes many more words, and a lot more love.

Atheist:  "..the only ideology I can grab hold of is uncertainty in the vastness of space and time."
Christian:  "How certain are you of that ideology?"

Today's self-refuting quote comes from Amanda Gefter writing for New Scientist on a recent, four-day Origins Symposium with prominent evolutionary thinkers.  Read her article for dozens more like this, and pray she and the others at the symposium find Jesus, who can pull them out of their dark pit of lonliness, emptiness, chance, insignificance, questions, and despair.  

This one needs no rebuttal:

Evolutionist:  "When thinking of evolution and Darwin, most people think of animals or trees.  That's too bad, because design features are everywhere in nature."

(Source, emphasis added)

Same source as above, wanted to add one more:

Evolutionist:  "The constructal law can be seen as a universal principle of evolution, which applies in many fields, from physics to economics."
Creationist:  "Pebbles tumble downstream, but salmon swim upstream.  The constructal law is refuted."

I dunno if that came across, but the article really is a dumb idea.  An evolutionist tries to combine physical laws with evolutionary "laws" (if there are any).  A one line comment shreds his hypothesis.  How was he able to publish this nonsense?

Skeptic:  "We cannot trust the Bible because it was written by men."
Christian:  "Well, your objection was written by men, so if your objection is trustworthy, then I cannot trust your objection!"

Socrates:  "All I know is that I know nothing."
Christian:  "That should be obvious."

Skeptic:  "Be skeptical of everything!"
Christian:  "If you apply your philosophy to your own views, you would have to be skeptical of skepticism."

Skeptic:  "It would be unscientific to accept a dogmatic claim that is not based on scientific inquiry."
Christian:  "Your dogmatic statement has not been scientifically proven."

Thank you AiG.