A common pointless evasion tactic amongst the more militant thumper posters here is to use a variation on this theme whenever their arguments are shown for what they are (worthless): "I'm just interested in finding out how non-believers think."

As to why they do this, I can only conjecture that they have been programmed by their cult leaders into clogging up our site with as many evasive non-arguments as possible so that no argument ever actually gets addressed, just like the modus operandi of their cult indoctrination (keep the plates spinning so the sheep never notice they're being shorn).

So I thought a posting of the most common evasive tactics (and pointers in how to avoid them) would be helpful to all concerned (even the Energizer Thumpers like Nomad and Jim Mitchell ). All are welcome to add their experiences.

The most important thing to remember about thumpers is that every single one of their arguments is a thinly veiled circuitous attempt to prove that their myth actually exists.

They have no other goal. There is no other purpose for their posting.

You will notice that there is not a single thumper post out there that does not operate from this basic premise (though Jim Mitchell's at least have the decency to tell you up front that that's what he is doing).

The most common evasive tactic used to obfuscate this central goal is what I call Follow The Bouncing Point (Jon Curry and Nomad are masters at this one).

It goes like this (a primer for theists):[list=1][*]Make Statement A. This is usually something idiotic or controversial enough to get attention, yet too vague to be directly refuted.[*]When this is directly refuted anyway due to its exceedingly poor construction, do not address the refutation. Instead state that your opponents are "off-topic" and claim that you are really arguing Statement B. Statement B is usually a less controversial version of Statement A.[*]When your opponents refute Statement B, claim that you were never arguing Statement B. Chastise your opponents for not being capable of recognizing what your true argument was, tell them to either read your original post or, better yet, tell them to go to another post and read your argument from there and then restate your argument in the current post using Statement C. Statement C is generally some aspect of A or B distilled even further into a completely non-controversial subject, taking into account all of the preceding direct refutation and then weaseling around it all through carefully chosen deceits of semantics.[*]Once Statement C is refuted, simply make the bald-faced lie that you were never arguing Statement C, but in fact were arguing Statement D. Statement D is anything you want to make up as it makes no difference at this point anyway.[*]Allow statement D to be refuted and ignore any reference to it.

If you've done this right, by the time Statement D is refuted, no one in the room will have any clue what point is being argued (which is good as you have no point to be argued) and you can claim victory to your ignorant cult members as the desired result was to vomit intellectual shrapnel and not offer forth a cogent, intelligent, well constructed argument.

Remember, your goal is to waste secularists' time by bringing up variations of the exact same arguments they have destroyed ten thousand times before and then childishly claim "oh no you haven't" whenever a detailed deconstruction is offered as evidence for this destruction.[/list=a]


(edited for formatting - Koy)




[This message has been edited by Koyaanisqatsi (edited April 03, 2001).]

ROFL,

Go on tell the truth, you have written a computer program that implements this algorythm and it posts around the net under various monickers ... go on own up!

Amen-Moses

wouldn't even know where to start, but I take that as a compliment...?

Toto

I've noticed Nomad starting 4 or 5 different threads on related subjects, so when point A is challenged on one thread he can claim to have "refuted" it on another. (Of course he hasn't, but by the time you've chased it down, he's moved on.)

There also seems to be an epidemic of believers claiming that non-believers are "fundamentalists" who just refuse to look at the evidence.

How did you get ahold of our theist manual?! Man! Now we've got to go invent some new tactics!


Ish

Bravo, Koy. You hit the nail on the head! Thanks.

rodahi

Q. What is an open board taken over by fundamentalist called?


A. Fundie Fodder!

Also, somewhere in the mire, they will send you offsite to pages and pages of irelevant crap! After hours of trying to figure it out you formulate a logical refute to said site and their original arguement.

Then, rather than answer your challenge, they'll send you somewhere else or repeat the "evasion tactic"!

I am glad someone else noticed this!

I used to think it makes the non-thesists look bad when instead of arguing, many will answer with a hearty F-you thesist troll!

Well after being sucked in once or twice I am starting to recant my position!

-T




[This message has been edited by Thomas (edited April 03, 2001).]

One thing that might be good for scaring Fundies away is talking about things that gross them out, like sex. For example, discussing what sort of relationship Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene had had.

Another favorite tactic is to fix on a small, unimportant part of the non-believer's post and turn it into a major point of contention. Remember when Nomad fixed on a quote that some theist made that was included in a post? It was totally irrelevant to the poor guy's argument. But then, how else is one to hide the weakness of his position (right, Nomad?)

And when he calls you an atheist fundie, take it as a compliment. It merely means Nomad knows he isn't doing too well.