I have to disagree with you on a minor issue. He does have a point . . . which is why he should wear a hat so that no one will see it.
That is definitely useful at times. Before joining this site, I had no knowledge of the various fallacies. That is to say, I was most always able to tell when somebody was presenting a ridiculous argument/claim/lie, but I was not aware there was an actual set of well-defined terms for the different types of illogical arguments. Looking back, I am sometimes amazed at how much I have learned since joining the AR. Thanks to the incredible pool of knowledge contained within all the members here (past and present), my debate skills in the area of religion have increased far beyond what I ever imagined possible. And I continue to learn something new on here almost every day.
There was a time I avoided any discussion about religion as if it was radioactive waste sludge. It always made me uncomfortable and agitated. Nowadays, however, I find myself actively seeking religious discussions. I thoroughly enjoy learning different things about various religions. I feel completely at ease (and often amused) being around different religious events/situations. It is fascinating to me now, and I love that feeling of freedom.
@David_Killens Re: Foil hat
Oh, hardy-hardy-har-har… That’s right. Go ahead. Just make fun of my tin hat. That’s okay. See if I care. But nobody can deny that I wear it better than anybody else.
I’m surprised people to this day continue to believe what Christianity proselytizes. It’s so obvious the Bible is sewer full of bullshit.
This is the first place I encountered them being used against arguments too. I didn’t realize there were names that could be applied to what I was sure were some really bad arguments. While trying to understand fallacies better I found these:
I think there’s at least a dozen of them . Since they were made for children they were about my speed.
If I ever manage it there’s a course at a community college that I think would be helpful with debates. Though I’m not sure how much good logic does when talking to people who are willing to believe fantastical things on faith and are even mandated by their religion to do so.
Excellent point. I find that to be rather frustrating at times.
Here it is wrapped up for you with a nice red ribbon, and you cannot even recognize it as a gift!
Here is a link you might find of interest.
I appreciate the explanations or descriptions of various approaches to debate, employed by the members, especially of those “older” members.
(no Cog, I am not talking about your “member”)
As a newer member here,(joined Apr.19) I have taken a more hands-off approach to begin with, largely to gauge what is generally acceptable, both by the other members and the moderators.(no it’s not “groupthink” you jerk))
Generally, I try not to “pile on”, which I think can produce an extreme defensive reaction in unprepared posters. It is easy to overwhelm someone with five or six well-prepared arguments. By the time one argument is addressed, the other points made get buried and are never addressed and it can result in the poster feeling “frazzled” and the members getting irritated by their points being ignored.
I also try to acknowledge the first members addressing the debate as having priority and respectfully defer, until which time I either cannot take any more bullshit, or I think some pertinent aspect is being overlooked.
We all have different approaches to conversation/debate, and I generally attempt to maintain, inasmuch as is demonstrably possible, some modicum of decorum in mine.(of course this does not include my rhetorical bullshitting).
As I am with photography, I do not overly concern myself with the specific methodology which produces the desired outcome, but rather the efficacy with which it does just that.
To that end, I have been frequently accused by my wife of “patronizing” people when in a debate/discussion. I have no concern for what label is placed on my methods if they can be shown to maintain civility while simultaneously exhibiting undeniably persuasive results. Sometimes (as may have been seen herein recently) maintaining civility is not an attainable goal. Ultimately, I am goal oriented in that, if I think it will have any chance of success, then, yes I will be patronizing or even resort to “pandering”.
The tools we use in debate are many and varied. I do respect the recognition of logical fallacies a great deal. They are many, and they are employed on a massive scale every day, not only by theists, but also in everyday conversation as well as news reporting, etc.
Having at least a cursory knowledge of the bible is extremely valuable, as I have seen a number of occasions where I had a better knowledge that the theist I was talking with. (thanks to being forced to study that gibberish growing up). There are several here whose bible acumen dwarfs my own.
Sometimes there are “hidden” clues as to the motivations or foundations of the argumenter’s presentation(s). These can range from fear to ignorance to indoctrination, etc., etc… Recognizing these earlier in the conversation can serve to help steer the debate in a direction not expected by the opponent, or indicate the futility of of having a conversation at all.
One thing I never do is use sarcasm. I would never do that as it is highly inappropriate. I am quite sure that I have amply demonstrated my reticence at engaging in any sort of sarcasm whatsoever, and would be deeply wounded if anyone sincerely thought I would stoop to such levels…**
Well @Bluedoc WARNING: the following statement may or may not include sarcasm, rhetoric or hyperbole; The logical argument that the bodily harm you are going to suffer is probably not worth you maintaining your belligerent stance, could be effective don’t you think?
True, but, I think you would get better results at blocking harmful radio waves if it was copper…
As one who had faced many engagements in this forum, it is my opinion that almost every theist uses the same arguments and thus fallacies. Personally call this “The Apologist Handbook”. From that expienrce I have accumulated a list of common fallacies they use.
You will learn them, you will also learn their counters.
What is important is that theists were taught their religion, they were also taught their arguments. The stories are finite, the arguments are finite.
If they actually began to examine their beliefs, then they are possibly starting down to the path to becoming atheists.
Great point. I have for some time now been just asking younger people (most people are younger than me anyway) to ask themselves exactly what do they believe and why. If I can persuade them to at least think about it, then I think you are right that it may be the entrance to the path…
@skriten That is why I am currently attempting to learn more about epistemology. For me, this appears to be the tool one uses to pry open the “why do you believe and is it a valid reason?”
That’s correct, Skrit. We here have NEVER witnessed anything even remotely resembling sarcasm emitted from that chirpie little beak of yours. I, for one, will go on record as saying you are a prime example of rock-steady sincerity. You are a pillar (pillow?) of genuine heartfelt empathy. A virtuoso of earnest candor. And as a fellow member who also refrains from the use of sarcasm, I applaud your mighty efforts to remain forthright in the face of logic-lacking lollygaggers.
Oh, really? You think so, huh? Hmph! Shows how much YOU know. If you had ever bothered to pay attention to the important articles in “U.F.O. Weekly” (which is published every two months), then you would know that copper actually helps FOCUS the alien radio waves into your brain. Only the molecular structure of tin can disruptively scatter the beams effectively in every-which-way directions away from the brain activity localized in the Paula Abdugotta. Geeez… Get a clue already.
This exact video is the first thing I thought of, too.
The second was, “argumentum ad baculum used on someone who grew up principally in a government housing project and having a military history must be nothing other than a pure use of sarcasm.”
That was exactly what I was hoping for. Of course it never came to pass.
The very incarnation of Satan himself.
Im not sure I buy his story about him being an Atheist for 28 years. He’s probably been a theist his entire life who went through a “crisis of faith”. I just cant take those who bounce back and forth seriously. You’re either an Atheist or you’re not. I don’t see any middle ground. No one ever goes back to believing in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus once they conclude they’re fictional fairy tales.
Speaking from experience when my ex wife gave me an ultimatum; re-convert or divorce. I went to church with her and I tried to make myself believe in it. I told myself in my head “it’s real” over and over. I sat through the sermons in church trying to make myself believe. I couldn’t. All I felt was anger and that it was all bullshit. I hated it. I found myself asking myself: “How is any of this real? Look at the stories. They’re so fucked up and silly. Really? Why do people believe in this shit? If it were real we wouldn’t need hospitals or Science.”