There's another tactic even more maddening than the rest, which is to make an introductory asinine comment one third of the way into an interesting and engaging post, thereby guaranteeing that the atheists in the room will all address the comment like carrion birds to a carcass, leaving their discussion behind and taking the thumper's bait.

This makes it seem that the theists are the martyrs for their cause against the swarm of heathens rushing to oppose them (Jim Mitchell, Layman and Jon Curry use it most often) and it serves the thumpers well, because the only thing that matters to them is confusing the issues so thoroughly that no lurking "fence-sitting" cult member ever gets to read a coherent, well constructed analysis of their cult indoctrination and discover the truth!

You can spot this technique whenever a thumper answers several responses in one post, picking and choosing what argument they can respond to (usually one from three or four of the other atheist's posts) and then ignoring the ones they can't respond to, so that the original interesting and engaging discussion suddenly halts and becomes all about the thumper with the asinine comment.

Beyond annoying, transparent and evasive, it's just downright rude and indicative of a serious psychological disorder as well as proof positive of cult indoctrination. I think they actually believe they are taking a bullet for Christ every time they pull this crap.

Unfortunately, however, it works just about every time as we secularists just can't stand to let blatantly asinine comments go even when we know they're designed to trap us into the thumper's Byzantine (anti) logic.

Jim Mitchell is probably the best at it, though Nomad certainly is no slouch at making it seem that his opinion is the only correct opinion.

I have to hand it to them, though, they serve them up and we chase after them and then WHAM! ten pages of repetitive drivel about "objective morality" reposted eighteen different times!

How about we look at some atheist tactics too. It would of course be unfair to have a completely one-sided discussion.
I post on several other non-religious message boards so I have a good idea of normal posting practice. Yet in the relatively short time I have been posting here I have noticed several detestable posting tactics used continuously by both Rodahi and Turtonm which would probably get them kicked off or warned by the moderators other boards - and they are supposed to be moderators???

These include (but are certainly not limited to):
"Where is your evidence/proof?" when the other poster has just stated it.
"Try reading my post" when the other poster has just replied to it and clearly understood it.
"Give the dates and names of extant MSS" when it is clearly unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion.
And best/worst of all "That is your opinion", without bothering to answer the actual evidence - as if that solves all the problems.

No doubt they will disagree with me. No doubt Rodahi will be along shortly saying that "this is your opinion" and asking "where is your proof?". In this case he would be entirely justified in doing it: This is my opinion and I'm not going to give proof. I wish only that he would do it only when he is justified.

My advice to you Rodahi and Turtonm:
If you wish to feel that you are doing well/winning in a debate, then you are certainly going the right way about it. I am sure your method makes you personally feel like your position is better.
However if you wish to sway readers to your side then it is useful to demonstrate both intelligence and sense. I have no doubt that you are both extremely intelligent people who have a great deal of knowledge about many things religious. I have only posted a little on this board because I realise that many here know a great deal more than me. But most readers will not be impressed by your arguments when they depart from common sense. If you come across as an intelligent person who properly understands all sides of the argument and has chosen your side for the logical reasons which you set forth in the argument then any reader will respect your opinion and listen to you. If you come across as an idiot who makes obviously unreasonable demands of the other side at every turn and who decends quickly to "that is your opinion" then I do not think the reader is going to be fully impressed by your arguments.

That's my opinion and advice, you are welcome to take it or declare it "Christian propaganda". (That should have been on my list too...)

I'll add it to mine. I abhor this "Christian propaganda" label, not to mention "cult", "fundamentalist", and "Thumper" (it is name-calling, plain and simple). This ends rational conversation and causes both sides to put up defenses.

I've seen good arguments on this website from both world-views, but I never appreciate it when these labels are brought in as a sort of crutch. (I expect theists to be called on the use of their "labels" as well...)

Ish

It's called fundie bashing. Insert as needed.

(no spellchecker again - apologies prologue for my dyslexia)

Ish just brought up another good evasion tactic: pretending that the theist is simply engaging in "rational conversation" (this is an adjunct to the martyr concept).

As cult members regularly point out when they are losing an argument, "it's all based on faith," which is to say, irrational belief!

This is the biggest problem with engaging in an argument with most (note the qualifier) thumpers here as they have no desire whatsoever to actually "rationally" discuss anything. It's all pretense in order to establish some sort of bizare "backdoor" in within a thread as every single argument the theist makes is based ultimately on irrationality by their own admission.

They believe "just because." No matter if they throw at you the entire arsenal of logical terminology to obfuscate this central fact, the end-of-the-day "truth" to their position is purely irrational by their own admission and deliberately so.

Hell, their own propaganda commands them to believe through faith alone, yet, like clockwork, they're in here attempting yet another circular arguments "proving" their cult!

There is rarely any other goal for a cult member other than to proselytize, either directly (like Jim Mitchell sometimes admits) or indirectly (as Nomad will never admit). They have only one point to make and they make it every single time they post regardless of the penultimate topic they use to misdirect away from their ultimate point; namely, their cult is the Truth because they say it's the truth. Truly disengenuous!

This is why deconstructing arguments thumpers make almost always digresses into pointlessness. They have only one song to sing and they will sing it no matter what is placed in their way, which proves their indoctrination and the invalidity of their cult.

As for rodahi, in his/her defense, I believe he/she is merely throwing another favored theist evasion tactic ("show us your proof") right back in their faces. Nomad is so guilty of this one it can make your head spin! It's also the most laughable tactic used by the thumpers as they know more so than anyone else that they have no proof of their beliefs, so at the first opportunity they get they throw this at our feet in feeble attempts to shift the burden of proof on to us.

That's a constant theme, by the way and something to watch for, as well. Because they have no evidence to support their childish cult belief structures they must avoid the whole idea of making any kind of claim or providing an argument in which we can say, "Where's your evidence for this?" Nomad does it very well. Unfortunately, he only has one or two arguments, which he posts again and again and again in slightly different ways so it's getting remarkably pointless to address his evasions, let alone his "position."

Let's not forget that this is our site designed for us to discuss secular issues, of which the Christian cult is not the primary one. Were it not for the constant irritation of ridiculous thumper "infiltrators" like Layman and Nomad and Mitchell posting the same circular arguments over and over and over again, this site would be much more intellectually engaging (I know, I was a relative newcomer a few months before I ever saw Nomad or Layman and the topics were far more interesting, alas, alack).

Not that I haven't enjoyed butting heads with this stupidity as I'm all for deprogramming cult members. Also, I'm sure that their transparent attempts have probably served our cause (whatever the hell that may be) far better than we could alone just waxing philosophic. I've received several email recently from "borderline" cult members asking all of the right questions, so something's working on that front !

It just gets so fuckin' annoying having to constantly deal with somebody's evasions instead of their points and counter points (which thumpers rarely, if ever make), but since they aparently see it as a cult mandated "must" to be here and refuse to go away no matter how many times their arguments have been destroyed, I thought this post would be helpful for any newbies out there wondering why we regulars keep repeating the same damn things over and over and over again.

It is especially interesting to see thumpers in here "venting" as well, which I encourage by all means. Perhaps if we deconstruct the manner in which we all approach these issues, we might get back on some sort of intellectual topic here and actually explore cult indoctrination and how to stop it!

When I first joined this forum, before I really knew anyone, I debated godlyman who employed his own version of "show me your proof." Everything he said was FACT! FACT! FACT!, and everything I said...everything...was OPINION! This Fact-Opinion mantra became very tiresome. He would then proceed to lay down a firewall of questions in the show-me-your-proof vein. Who could answer them all? Who would want to? The original point was being lost as we digressed into pointlessness (as Koyaanisqatsi put it). And I got suckered in. He had a youthful exuberance but an unrefined debating technique. (I know: all these techniques are unrefined. That's why they're called "evasive".) I eventually got around to reading his site and, like others, discovered that he was not only a very peculiar Christian, but a True Believer in the Eric Hoffer sense of the term. Proof took a back seat, ideology was paramount. I lost interest in that type of debate.

Oh... okay... but I was sure this was the Biblical Criticism & Archaeology forum? ~sigh~ I must have got it wrong. This must clearly demonstrate my theist inability to read properly...

Seriously, this entire thread is becoming more and more rapidly a joke. Can we dispense with the silliness now Koyaanisqatsi?

Toto

The Christian cult is the dominant one in the US, so we need to learn to deal with it.

If you haven't already, check out "The Jury is In" on this site - a refutation of Josh McDowells Evidence that Demands a Verdict. You will find a lot of the same arguments and mindset.

I don't object so much to Christians who know that they rely on faith, and know the problems in their history. But apologetics does some peculiar torquing to logic and history.

I see nothing silly about this, Tercel. Recognizing how cult members evade relevant points and how they give the impression that they are seriously engaged in discovering the "truth" about a subject (i.e., the purpose of debate), when in fact their only goal is to proselytize can be very helpful to newcomers as well as a nice place to blow off a little steam after slamming your head repeatedly against cult members like Nomad and Jim Mitchell.

Deconstructing the way cultists hide their circular arguments also exposes their cult indoctrination and illustrates far better than any one argument could how their cult obfuscates discovery in favor of dogma. I have had many arguments with atheists here where my point was not thought out correctly and my argument was weak and when shown learned something. Cultists, on the other hand, never concede and are incapable of conceding, which means that no truly useful dialogue can ever be maintained for its own sake; rather for the sake of anyone "lurking" in the post who may be reading along.

If newcomers understand that their argumetns will serve no purpose when directly addressing an individual such as Nomad or Layman, perhaps then they will at least realize that there are others following the exchange who can benefit from their argumentative approach and, in essence, continue the pointlessness with Nomad, for example, only to modify their points for the "choir," as it were.

As for why this post is here (in Biblical Criticism and Arch), these evasive tactics are used across the board, granted, but I have found that most newcomers to our posts come here first. I could be wrong and if you have a better suggestion as to where this post can metaphysically go, by all means suggest it.

Otherwise, shut yer pie hole!

Tercel,

If you truly wish to debate/discuss ANYTHING on ANY board in a civil, gentlemanly manner, let me know. All I ask is that you not (and I will not) make snide remarks or use sarcasm. I will meet you halfway on ANY topic. Let me know.

rodahi