Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TheGreatInfidel · 06-04-2003, 11:19 PM

In this thread Jinto gave a really nice observation of the tactics some theists employ in order to weasel themselves from having to be accontable for the assertions they make. I thought It would be a good idea to compile an extended and elaborate list of what Jinto already started there. I think its bound to be usefull for future reference. Comments?

SecularFuture · 06-05-2003, 05:13 AM

---- Originally posted by Abel Stable

"Danielius, I suggest you get off of the semantics train, because its headed nowhere. You're obfuscating to the point of giving me a headache with all this dogma business. Why is it so important to you?"

Quote:

Originally posted by Jinto

I can answer that question. It's a common theist tactic: pretending that all beliefs are equally irrational - that is, they try to show that you accept one or more of your beliefs a priori, and then use that to say that it is not irrational to hold an existential claim to be true a priori. It's bloody illogical, and at best would be a tu quoque, and that's IF their comparisons didn't rely on a great deal of equivication. In this case, he wants to equivicate on the definition of dogma, watering it down so that we can be called dogmatic, and then use this to tell us that we are dogmatic in the more traditional sense, so as to defend his own obvious dogmatism. Here's a quote from one of his earlier posts:

The second thing is that there is no thing as 'freethought', as indeed there is no thing as 'free love'. Thought, as love, implies commitment, to a dogma as to a dog. To think is not to grow out, but to trim back. It is man's attempt to define his knowledge, by limiting it, as he limits his marriage or his garden. Let us all put our dogmas on the table

Oddly, he never acknowledged my response to that. This is another common theist tactic: ignoring reponses to their points. It lets them repeat the same arguments over and over without ever bothering to think aobut whether they might be wrong. While I admit that there may be time constraints due to the number of responses, the least he could do is try to address the common elements of our arguments. But I have yet to see in this debate a specific response to any point.

<edit>Correction: I see that he did in fact acknowledge the semantic arguments of Bumble Bee Tuna. My mistake.</edit>

Oddly enough, I also realize that past the first couple of posts none of his posts have directly adressed the point, even in a roundabout way. Instead, we have been focusing on idiotic semantic arguments. This is theist tactic #3: misdirection. I would like to see him tell us why belief in some supernatural deity is in any way justified form the available evidence, but I expect him to continue attacking atheist beliefs and atheism itself. This is because if he adressed the actual issue, we would very quickly see that his posts are without content. Of course, we see that anyway, bgut this prevents him from having to admit defeat.

BTW, to avoid charges of ad hominem and/or ad logicam, I hereby diclaim that the contents of this post are in any way an argument either for atheism or against Christianity, but merely my observations of common mistakes employed by Christians and danielius in particular.

SecularFuture · 06-05-2003, 06:00 AM

What are the techniques that theists and religious theists use to defend their belief in deities and scripture? Are their arguments for valid?

I find it so strange that, sometimes, when I try to question their [the theist's] un-reality, they try to question reality.

I'll ask - "How do you that god is real?"
They'll ask - "How do you know that you're real?"

I usually either be a smart arse and say "That�s not an answer to my question", or I will try to challenge their statement with a response like "We have no other option but to accept what we perceive through our five senses, or are able to detect through electronic devices. Believing in beings that we can not detect is - blah - blah - blah."

===================

Another technique that I came across recently was with this guy who had an obsession with word definitions. Our debate can be found HERE, between me and Mnkbdky. When ever I would make a point against theism using a word that had more then 4 syllables, he would dodge my point by asking �could you please define what you mean by �so �n- so� and so on?� And if he didn�t do that, he would play with my words to make my arguments easier for him to defend.

I would say something like - �Why should the supernatural exist in natural world?�
And he would respond with something like � �Are you saying that nothing in this world is immaterial?�

===================

Oh well.......

Taffer · 06-05-2003, 08:43 AM

Our local school fundie is like this.

"God exists. It's just fact. There is no other perspective."

How do you argue with somebody who just repeats his point over and over instead of arguing himself?

Oh, but I did get him to budge an inch once: "Well, okay, so there are other perspectives. But they're all wrong."

Then again, calling this a tactic cheapens the word somewhat.

Calzaer · 06-05-2003, 08:55 AM

Taffer: The correct response to that is a simple "Prove it."

Taffer · 06-05-2003, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Calzaer
Taffer: The correct response to that is a simple "Prove it."

I tried that. Tried a bunch of other stuff too. He just repeated that single sentence. And there was a limited amount of time and effort I was willing to invest in the discussion.

It was like trying to tell a small child that the sky is green. Or a broken record, for that matter.

SecularFuture · 06-05-2003, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taffer
I tried that. Tried a bunch of other stuff too. He just repeated that single sentence. And there was a limited amount of time and effort I was willing to invest in the discussion.

It was like trying to tell a small child that the sky is green. Or a broken record, for that matter.

Thats horrible.

You could say "No amount of belief can turn something into a fact" or - "People just can't say something is real, and then (POOF) it becomes real."

SecularFuture · 06-05-2003, 02:04 PM

Taffer · 06-05-2003, 02:17 PM

I suppose I could try, but I promised myself not to start any more discussions with him. I'd rather go do something productive, like playing video games or counting cobstones.

Anyway, we're derailing the thread. Ahem.

06-04-2003, 11:19 PM	#1
TheGreatInfidel Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 183	Fundie Tactics In this thread Jinto gave a really nice observation of the tactics some theists employ in order to weasel themselves from having to be accontable for the assertions they make. I thought It would be a good idea to compile an extended and elaborate list of what Jinto already started there. I think its bound to be usefull for future reference. Comments?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2003, 06:00 AM	#3
SecularFuture Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 3,866	What are the techniques that theists and religious theists use to defend their belief in deities and scripture? Are their arguments for valid? I find it so strange that, sometimes, when I try to question their [the theist's] un-reality, they try to question reality. I'll ask - "How do you that god is real?" They'll ask - "How do you know that you're real?" I usually either be a smart arse and say "That�s not an answer to my question", or I will try to challenge their statement with a response like "We have no other option but to accept what we perceive through our five senses, or are able to detect through electronic devices. Believing in beings that we can not detect is - blah - blah - blah." =================== Another technique that I came across recently was with this guy who had an obsession with word definitions. Our debate can be found HERE, between me and Mnkbdky. When ever I would make a point against theism using a word that had more then 4 syllables, he would dodge my point by asking �could you please define what you mean by �so �n- so� and so on?� And if he didn�t do that, he would play with my words to make my arguments easier for him to defend. I would say something like - �Why should the supernatural exist in natural world?� And he would respond with something like � �Are you saying that nothing in this world is immaterial?� =================== Oh well.......

06-05-2003, 08:43 AM	#4
Taffer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bern, Switzerland Posts: 348	Our local school fundie is like this. "God exists. It's just fact. There is no other perspective." How do you argue with somebody who just repeats his point over and over instead of arguing himself? Oh, but I did get him to budge an inch once: "Well, okay, so there are other perspectives. But they're all wrong." Then again, calling this a tactic cheapens the word somewhat.

06-05-2003, 08:55 AM	#5
Calzaer Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 2,762	Taffer: The correct response to that is a simple "Prove it."

06-05-2003, 02:04 PM	#8
SecularFuture Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 3,866

06-05-2003, 02:17 PM	#9
Taffer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bern, Switzerland Posts: 348	I suppose I could try, but I promised myself not to start any more discussions with him. I'd rather go do something productive, like playing video games or counting cobstones. Anyway, we're derailing the thread. Ahem.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.