Sign in to follow this  
- AUB -

WE WON

Recommended Posts

This article prompted me to finally get round to summing up an idea I’ve been working on regarding debating. (I really recommend reading the article) This is the first draft; I post it here as the subject matter is dealt with frequently on this section. If successful I’ll put it up on other forums.

 

 

 

WE’VE WON

 

A freethought manifesto.

 

Many veteran debaters will have noticed that theists never have a case, just fallacies, half truths and lies. Given the presupposition that theism, (particularly xtianity) is a lie, then this is what we’d expect. (And can be said to be evidence that it’s false). It’s often frustrating to deal with apologists, creationists and fundies with no sense of decency, honesty (intellectual or otherwise) or logic. They are often immature mentally and behave like tantruming children, irrational and subjective when it fails to go their way.

 

As far as I’m concerned, this endless cycle of unacknowledged victories is more likely to wear us down than them. They have an endless supply of ill-educated and close minded ranters, debating them is bad enough but the amount of education needed to correct the lies they’ve been fed is exhausting. How many times have we repeated ourselves? Once we’ve made it clear and succeed with that person, at least so they’ll stop using that argument, there’s another one fresh from tektonics.org to swagger and spew garbage at us. Unless the damage to their reason is so bad, (as with the four-point-perfect-proof guy) that they carry on regardless.

 

Those who fill their heads never tell them the whole truth or that sceptics and atheists have already killed their nonsence thousands of times over, how can they? It’s all they’ve got. For e.g. carefully showing why the Testimonium Flavius, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics fails to support their position, only to have to go through it again when the next xtian shows up. Utterly oblivious not only to our prior destruction of all they have to say but even that there’s any controversy or room for doubt as to their “proofs”. They often expect us to cave in at the first post. We can’t reach them in their cocoons during the conditioning phase and by the time they come our way the damage has been done.

 

Surely by now we’ve successfully dealt with every single argument many times over? I think it’s about time we who can see the pattern, and know just how bad the xtian debating standard is acknowledge not only how easy it is to refute everything they say, especially for those who’ve done it more than once, but how reason and facts are simply never on their side.

 

If xtians could be aware of the score, and how hopeless their case is, if they knew simply what arguments have been definitively eliminated they’ll have nothing to say to us, we could win each time without any exchange. This may not be possible, but what we can to is declare a provisional victory, on the basis that all known apologetic tactics have failed and given the power of reason it looks certain all in the future will be just as swiftly defeated. Not only will this declaration frustrate them, and hopefully make them search through past battles to see the cause of our position but it will make debating so much simpler.

 

This is how we do it, we begin by addressing the audience, whoever they are, and state that we have won. We have nothing more to prove regarding our own position. All we need to do it show why our opponents lost by taking everything they say, and dissecting it, clinically showing all fallacies, and falsehoods to the audience. Our opponents are irreverent, they are either unaware of our victory or in denial over it. This may seen arrogant but there is good reason to think this can already be said to be the case.

 

It won’t be a debate any more, but a calm educational demonstration of why they lost, and why the very nature of their beliefs makes legitimate argument impossible. They loose automatically by having the position they do, one that can only be defended by fallacies and falsehood. (It’s not like we’re short of evidence for this). Think of it as a boost to morale.

 

What would also help is a reference archive, easy to access of not only the flaws rendering all xtian discourse pointless, (fallacies etc) but a database of past arguments, carefully indexed by type, from C.S. Lewis’s “trilemma” to Justin Martyrs “the devil did it” defence of xtian plagerism. All that Lee Strobel, Hovind or Josh McDowell have offered, why we don’t just disagree with these arguments but can logical prove them conclusively invalid. We need to put our foot down and demand as a parent to a child that this is the reality, they can either play by the rules or shut up. Their arrogance, complacency and smugness is utterly unjustified, they have no case, its time we told them that.

 

It’ll be up to the xtians to either try something else or try to refute our conclusions without adding to the fallacies and falsehoods. These attempts of course will be carefully dissected. I know it sounds like hard work but we’re not getting anywere the usual way. We deserve this new approach, the integrity, honesty and hard work of the freethinking world has too long gone un-appreciated, even by other freethinkers. We have already passed all religions on the road to truth and they will never catch up.

 

 

Again, there is not one apologist arguments that has not been refuted, am I the only one who feels confident enough to say this?

 

The dishonesty and illogical reputation of xtians defenders is proverbial, we are not obligated to treat them as if this is a level playing field. It’s like playing a complex game of chess with someone who constantly cheats in a way un-perceivable to the audience or judges. We need to step outside the arena and offer explanatory commentaries, explaining what’s really going on.

 

The mythical nature of Jesus can be said to be opinion, the nature of ethics or the responsiblity for xtianity’s crimes is still open to debate, but one thing is fact, beyond all doubt. Xtians are wrong. We have made our case, it stands unrefuted, maybe not in their own minds but as far as logic and empirical fact is concerned. There’s is in tatters from the very way it was contrusted. This may not prove them wrong but by any objective standard we won the debate. Even mythicism can be said to be (in a scientific sense) the leading theory. It is the xtian's turn to offer a new argument, instead of offering the same dead claims. Some logic would be nice, or fallacy-free premises. Until they do its just the same old thing and we already knows how it ends.

 

This may seem harsh to those “liberal” xtians who aren’t out to prove a lie, and with them dialogue is sometimes still possible. But those literalists, inerrantists or fans of Gastrich or Strobel’s “reasoning” need to be made aware, with as little effort on our part as possible that their opinions are not respected, as they are by definition false. Like a quack scientist who keeps offering the same debunked and disproven theory over and over again, they are just wasting our time. (It will, like pseudo-science still work on the un-educated, but like creationists leaders they’ll stay clear of those that know better) We need to spread the word that they have lost, and why. Sooner or later they’ll realise the nonsense that works on them only works on them. Maybe they’ll come to understand why they’ve failed, and start to think. There will still be pushers of fallacial lies, those apologists who can’t break free or who on some level know it’s a lie, but they can be shown as the frauds they are quite easily.

 

Both sides think their right but only one has proven it beyond a reasonable doubt already. Time our attitude reflected that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

AUB, read it, got it, agree.

 

Where do we go from here?

 

I suggest a list is created of the standard apologist/christian-defeneders "proofs" first.

 

Next it has to be some work on the "answer" documents, with one "owner" of the document, and many contributors, and discussions to solidify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AUB,

 

Permission to repost?

 

kL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry AUB but...I think this happens to be the same road fundy's went down that got them (and us poor by-standers) into the deep cow dung we are in now. People who start from the premise that there is only one right way and everyone else is wrong aren't usually people I like to converse with, if you know what I mean.

 

It's a stirring speech and all but...I don't think that's what I'm looking for here on Ex-C.net. :shrug:

 

(edited for spelling *tisk*)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry AUB but...I think this happens to be the same road fundy's went down that got them (and us poor by-standers) into the deep cow dung we are in now.  People who start from the premise that there is only onw right way and everyone else is wrong aren't usually people I like to converse with, if you know what I mean.

 

It's a stirring speech and all but...I don't think that's what I'm looking for here on Ex-C.net. :shrug:

 

That is true. But I am sick of Christians coming here with the EXACT same debate over and over. No matter how much we tell them that we have heard it all before, they all think they have something new to say. It gets really really old. :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is true. But I am sick of Christians coming here with  the EXACT same debate over and over. No matter how much we tell them that we have heard it all before, they all think they have something new to say. It gets really really old. :shrug:

 

 

You are free to disengage at any time. I do it all the time once I realize the other party isn't listening. Cut your losses and move on.

 

Where would you be if everyone had written you off from the start? Personally, I'd probably still be a rabid fundy. If I could locate the anonymous individuals who had the patience to listen to my mindless banter and correct me, I'd be quite gratefull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry AUB but...I think this happens to be the same road fundy's went down that got them (and us poor by-standers) into the deep cow dung we are in now.  People who start from the premise that there is only onw right way and everyone else is wrong aren't usually people I like to converse with, if you know what I mean.

 

It's a stirring speech and all but...I don't think that's what I'm looking for here on Ex-C.net. :shrug:

 

 

 

Disagree Ms C...

 

Damn near everyone that walked away from Religion and deconverted started *somewhere*.

 

You are past AUB's discussion and arguments, however his work is a good lynchpin for connecting various thoughts and connectiong long strings of thinking to those who aren't yet out of the sectarian jungles..

 

Soundbytes have their place, and we sure argue back and forth with them.. Things like AUB's article make my work a bit easier when I can direct someone to reading an informed line of rationality...

 

kL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I partly agree with Cerise, I'd say that at the very least AUB proposes a nice way to stick it to those who come here in all their divinely-sanctioned arrogance and ignorance. Hey, if a new one drops in and is at least willing to listen to the other side, we can still continue as before... but for those hurling around such "gems of wisdom" like the fundie strawman of the 2nd law, I say go for it and shove a thundering "We've already won" down their throats. :fdevil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry AUB but...I think this happens to be the same road fundy's went down that got them (and us poor by-standers) into the deep cow dung we are in now.  People who start from the premise that there is only one right way and everyone else is wrong aren't usually people I like to converse with, if you know what I mean.

 

It's a stirring speech and all but...I don't think that's what I'm looking for here on Ex-C.net. :shrug:

 

(edited for spelling *tisk*)

 

 

I agree with the spirit of your argument here but at the same time AUB isn't without some facts on his side. It is highly frustrating for example to have to dispel debates against evolution when the arguments based on pseudo science have clearly been destroyed; not by us here mind you, but by the whole of the scientific community. To offer those presenting these arguments equal footing on the debate floor is as preposterous as providing the local opinionated barber Barney a place at the table during national presidential debates.

 

In any case, it wouldn't hurt to have an archive of refuted arguments if those capable of compiling such are willing to put forth the effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some great responses, but I’m surprised some thought they could dismiss this so easily. Sometimes my posts are not as well thought out, but when I post something in great big huge letters, as a declaration of intend, you can bet your arse I’m more than capable of defending it.

 

spamandham

 

TAG

 

This is why I posted it here, miss-understandings can be dealt with for the second draft. This is not TAG, (do you honestly think I’d put that little thought into it?) even if we didn’t proceed on the presupposition that they are wrong, it can still be shown not only in past debates but everytime they say anything new. It is continually proven, a presup is unnecessary, however it is valid to use one here as it is supported by the facts, and is in turn derived from them. A cycle of validation. Empirically and logically it is valid, and not that far from what other freethinkers have already said. I’m just taking it to the next level.

 

HanSolo

 

I suggest a list is created of the standard apologist/christian-defender’s "proofs" first.

 

Yes, on this site and others. This tactic is as much about our morale as the way we continue in debates. A fresh approach should at least keep things interesting, many of the best freethinkers have a “no debate” policy through fatigue, we need to get tham back in the game under new rules.

 

Next it has to be some work on the "answer" documents, with one "owner" of the document, and many contributors, and discussions to solidify it
.

 

Our case, or rather that of science and logic has already been made in academia and education, and remains untouched. A brief outline of it would help, maybe in the manifesto, but simply the statement that logic and fact disproves all xtians say should be enough once we can demonstrate that this always applies.

 

You're right. I wonder what all our presuppers would think of this statement?

 

Guess how much I care. Presup is illogical by the standards of logic, in the same way creationism is unscientific by every standard but it’s own. We have to make them acknowledge standards outside their own little paradigm. Such arguments are only self validating and therefore self refuting.

 

To presuppose a position with no good reason or evidence, then to use it to bias all thought and words is unjustifiable. Their opinion is irrelevant. The presup I use is validated by all available empirical data, not just logic. A false conclusion is preceded by fallacious premises. It is a decent tentative position to take all the fallacies and lies and use them to conclude they have no case.

 

nivek

 

Permission to repost?

 

After I’ve ironed out a few things, such as the objections here, this is just a rough draft, I hope to put this up in all available sites once the “peer review”is concluded.

 

Cerise

 

People who start from the premise that there is only one right way and everyone else is wrong aren't usually people I like to converse with,

 

We are not starting on the premise we are right, it’s a conclusion (or declaration) based on all we have seen and know. We don’t just wait for them to try and disprove our arguments, but give them a higher goal, to disprove why we’ve already won. I don’t think they could even do that, it’ll make them sweat at least. We after all have a mother of an advantage over them, reality.

 

You assume a false dichotomy, but that is not what I’m saying. “We” won as in all the many views that use logic and critical thinking, that represents many diverse opinions, all of them respectable, even though they may be wrong, it would be unjust to dismiss them as they have at least tried to avoid fallacy. But xtian debaters don’t even try, not the best of them. There is a good explanation for this, they are wrong, got a better one? The same basic fallacies and lies are used by newbie ranters and world famous apologists, none are free of the taint of it. That’s the point, if this were just a few amateurs displaying ignorance of science and logic then we’d have no cause to rebuke them all, but it’s the same no matter how educated, experienced or qualified they are.

 

It’s like in a sporting tournament, if all the teams who constantly cheat, through foul or drugs are removed, plenty of teams remain. They battle it out as honest opponents. This is about respect, they have made sure they don’t deserve any. They should be held to account. How long do you intend to put up with it?

 

The position is not that we are right, full stop, but that they not only cannot be said to be right, as their arguments are invalid, but that this permits us to suppose they are wrong, I don’t see this presup being disproved some how, do you? They’ve said all they’re going to and it has not been enough to even keep the case open. We win, by default if you like, because such fallacies and falsehoods are not found in our work, (at least not to the crippling and total extent of their work). For e.g. I could be wrong about mythicism, but it’s not going to be theologians or apologists who are going to prove that, but historians, logicians, scholars, with superior reasoning and evidence. Why else would they demand even amateur Earl Doherty’s arguments be peer reviewed? Because they know they can’t do it themselves, all they offer their brethren is fallacies and falsehood, in other words, nothing.

 

I’m not saying I’m proven there is no god, that is beyond the scope of this manifesto, (but they have not proven and probably cannot). But we should acknowledge that on matters of empirical fact, they lie, and on matters of reason, they fallacy, they lose through disqualification, not by fiat.

 

It's a stirring speech and all but...I don't think that's what I'm looking for here on Ex-C.net.

 

Maybe not, I’m going to try in on other sites. I could do the old, “it’s a crazy idea, but it just might work!” routine but I think this is a reasonable proposition.

 

Saviorforsale

 

But I am sick of Christians coming here with the EXACT same debate over and over. No matter how much we tell them that we have heard it all before, they all think they have something new to say. It gets really really old.

 

Exactly, we lose good minds over this, and we need to bolster our ranks. We have the advantage in facts and logic, they in numbers and the force of ignorance.

 

spamandham

 

You are free to disengage at any time. I do it all the time once I realize the other party isn't listening. Cut your losses and move on.

 

Those losses mount up. They do everything through emotion, I can’t think of a better way to spark it, and this may force them to listen, just so they can grasp what the hell is going on. And if that fails there’s always the Socratic method for that type, making them go from subjective to an objective frame of mind is all important.

 

In all strategies this new attitude could apply. I would do it entirely on my own, but this is more a group thing. I’ve been after a defeat since I started, if this is discredited I’ll drop the idea, but if not, I say we go for it.

 

Where would you be if everyone had written you off from the start?

 

Exactly the same place, many xtians already have, does that stop us? If I used xtians arguments, I’d deserve to be written off. Many do write off apologism already, I’m just after a consensus on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spamandham

Personally, I'd probably still be a rabid fundy.

 

A certain percentage of xtians are indeed de-converted through standard debate, but most are not. This is about humanity at large, not the xtian in question. Sure I could pour all my effort into “saving” that one theist, but it’s a waste of energy most of the time. The audience is what matters, they need to understand the broader picture. We know why xtians are wrong, we need to help others see that as well. Who’s to say it wouldn’t de-convert the xtian debater? It’s not only the truth as far as I see, but requires an objective mind to comprehend. We tell them we’ve won and why, let’s see what they do then. Think of it as a social experiment.

 

If I could locate the anonymous individuals who had the patience to listen to my mindless banter and correct me, I'd be quite gratefull.

 

We are going to correct them, patience and humility still apply, we just tell them the result in advance. They like prophecies.

 

nivek

 

Damn near everyone that walked away from Religion and deconverted started *somewhere*.

 

I didn’t fully become atheistic until I comprehended just how weak the case for theism is, and how those who oppose it have all facts and logic on their side. It took a hell of a long time and very eclectic research before I could be sure of this. I just think a short cut is needed. My studies of apologism, freethought, debating practices and xtian propaganda history, from Paul to Hovind have lead me conclude that they have never had a case. I intend to proceed from that conclusion now, I would like others to join me, (or prove me wrong).

 

When I first encountered xtians in debate I soon saw the flaws in all their arguments. (My first ever post resulted in a “epic” debate with goldie, even though I had never debated or written anything since college, I wiped the floor with him, I was quite surprised) I then traced their self evidently false arguments to the leading apologists of today, and those of the past. I found they were of the same quality no matter were you looked. The whole paradigm appeared to be resting on childish bunk. How had it survived so long? Oh yer, violence. How can everything every xtian has said be completely fallacial? It makes no sense unless xtianity is wrong. They have no other way to even appear right, it’s the only explanation. All xtians apologetics, if taken in their entirety disprove xtianity. Is this a leap? I put the pieces together and this is what I get.

 

Soundbytes have their place, and we sure argue back and forth with them.. Things like AUB's article make my work a bit easier when I can direct someone to reading an informed line of rationality...

 

That is the purpose, to encourage them to do so, by saying without such rationality they lose before they even begin.

 

Thurisaz

 

While I partly agree with Cerise, I'd say that at the very least AUB proposes a nice way to stick it to those who come here in all their divinely-sanctioned arrogance and ignorance.

 

It will certainly work better on some theists than on others, consider is an optional tool at least. There are some who are lost to reason, and no debate will help them, (I mentioned one such person in the manifesto) They deserve a wake up call, and such rudeness on their part will not be tempered by politeness or tolerance, but shock treatment.

 

Sam Harris came up with a disturbingly similar argument to one I offered in one of my epics, that even liberals are a threat and a problem, that all xtianity must be challenged, even if it hurts feelings, and seem harsh. They’re moderation gives xtianity an undeserved positive reputation, and gets it off the hook when fundys go off the rails. “Oh they missundestand the bible cuz most xtians are good” etc. I’m going for this approach with all xtians but most here would probably prefer saving just for the seagulls.

 

Vigile_del_fuoco1

 

It is highly frustrating for example to have to dispel debates against evolution when the arguments based on pseudo science have clearly been destroyed; not by us here mind you, but by the whole of the scientific community.

 

Exactly, it’s not just our victories that count, but that their statements are scientifically false, and logic itself disproves them, not just my ability to write them into the ground. They are objectively wrong, their defeat can be said to be a fact, not just opinion. If we can come up with a good enough statement (not argument) concerning how and why they lost, we’d just offer that each time. As a screening process, to remove all fallacies and lies, (inaccuracies doesn’t quite cover it) I’d be very surprised if they have anything left, in fact that would be the clincher. It’s not like I haven’t made this falsifiable. (Again unlike TAG).

 

To offer those presenting these arguments equal footing on the debate floor is as preposterous as providing the local opinionated barber Barney a place at the table during national presidential debates.

 

You have just summed up the whole thing.

 

In any case, it wouldn't hurt to have an archive of refuted arguments if those capable of compiling such are willing to put forth the effort.

 

I was thinking of making it a multi-freethought site project, once the manifesto has finished it’s rite of passage here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CRCampbell

Agreed.

 

I have only one thing to add: I believe most Christians of the fundamentalist variety aren't here to learn and find out the truth. They are here to convert and play gawd's messenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read your first paragraph and was amazed at how it applied to ATHEIST.

 

Not just the part about “fallacies, half truths and lies”, but more when you said-

 

“They are often immature mentally and behave like tantruming children, irrational and subjective when it fails to go their way.”

 

Go back and read some of the “debates” (for lack of a better word) on evolution, abiogenesis, and the origin of the universe that have been conducted on this site. Try to count the number of times the atheists resorted to “F-you, you idiot”.

 

I have basically stopped posting here due to the lack of people who are willing to “debate” intelligently.

 

Talk about an “endless cycle of unacknowledged victories”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have basically stopped posting here due to the lack of people who are willing to =“debate” intelligently agree with my rants(sniff).

 

I was hoping that you would have something challenging to say. Your whining sort of supports AUB's position, that you don't have anything to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Slayer-2004

I love how invictus uses an obviously false sense of sincerity . Its pathetic really how some xians actually try to pretend like they have something intelligent to say .

 

Either that or invictus is a troll .

 

 

 

Or he is just stupid .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-AUB-

The audience is what matters, they need to understand the broader picture. We know why xtians are wrong, we need to help others see that as well.

This makes sense to me. I have shown luke warm christians, and christians who are christian in title only; with very little belief in everything that is given us in the bible, that that book has to many problems to be the word of a god. I've also given them links to sites that break down evolution for the lay people. Some of them now believe that book is mythology. Fewer still spread the word, but some do. It does not matter what fundies think if christianity becomes a minority through people listening to people talk or debate about these things.

 

There are many kinds of christians in any given audience I'd wager. To me this makes perfect sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea. Leaving a paper trail of that nature would require them to acknowledge that they have been shot down before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go back and read some of the “debates” (for lack of a better word) on evolution, abiogenesis, and the origin of the universe that have been conducted on this site. Try to count the number of times the atheists resorted to “F-you, you idiot”.

 

I have basically stopped posting here due to the lack of people who are willing to “debate” intelligently.

 

 

 

I read many of those debates. As I recall, you kept asking the theory of evolution to explain how life first began, when it does not claim to address that question, but instead, the origin of species. When people pointed out that the prior question comes under abiogenesis, you then argued, abiogenesis is not proved, therefore God. When people like Neil and Mr. Spooky discussed research that bears on that question, you expected all to slide with you from "science doesn't yet know the answer" to "God did it." Then you derided the intelligence of the people who refused to agree with your many inferences that do not follow. As you deride our intelligence once again, failing to separate rhetoric from valid points that were made to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dogmatically_challenged

 

Yes debaters too often focus on the opponent, but he is irrelevant, we need to cluster bomb not snipe.

 

To me this makes perfect sense.

 

Sam Harris and I are one on this, the liberals need to be de-converted more than the fundies, they are the support and sole reason the cult is respected, or taken seriously. Freethought is heading here anyway, I just want to be the first to try it. If we show to reasonable minds why the faith, when taken to its logical conclusion or defended most vigorously hasn’t a hope, then we change it all. Many already think fundamentalism is wrong, we need to show precisely why, and how this applies to their own beliefs as well. Every degree and point on the spectrum has its apologists. All are wrong, fundies were the easiest to defeat, but even the moderates have their fallacies they cannot exorcise. Hence they too are counted among the slain.

 

Stormwarden

 

I like the idea. Leaving a paper trail of that nature would require them to acknowledge that they have been shot down before.

 

Bingo. If we explain calmly and carefully, before they start foaming at the mouth and telling us how hot hell is going to be, it might force them to try a bit harder. Or ask some awkward question of their pastors.

 

ficino

 

Good thing you remembered. Yes, replay the errors that lead to defeat.

 

Slayer-2004

 

I love how invictus uses an obviously false sense of sincerity

 

Again others sum it up so well.

 

Its pathetic really how some xians actually try to pretend like they have something intelligent to say .

 

But surely not to themselves, as they must be aware they actually haven’t said anything.

 

How provocative to I have to get before I get a reaction? I announce the defeat of xtianity (with reasons) and all they do is the usual brat talk. Do I have to de-convert the Pope before they take me seriously? I want mind bullets! Xtians are like that black knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, no matter what you do; the loony will not acknowledge either defeat or how much trouble he is in. They may think they can bite my legs of, or can settle for a political “draw” but they need to see the truth, the only reason they don’t run away is due to a lack of legs.

 

chefranden

 

I was hoping that you would have something challenging to say.

 

You and me both. I long ago stopping looking for a test of my mental, hence by declaration.

 

Your whining sort of supports AUB's position, that you don't have anything to say.

 

Chef, you’ll be horrified to hear I’m getting ready to carry on the objective morality debate, I think I see a solution. (Besides you’re the only one to ever go the distance with me).

 

CRCampbell

 

I believe most Christians of the fundamentalist variety aren't here to learn and find out the truth.

 

And it is precisely for them that this strategy applies, they wont listen, and we already know they haven’t a case, and can predict what fallacies they’ll use, and what lies they’ve swallowed. So why not just say so, and declare on the homepage, (just mine for now) that we win, not just in general but totally, based on the fact that all theists only have a limited set of arguments, all of which we’ve already dealt with. We just give our reasons and leave them to get annoyed. Just imagine if this declaration pops up on secular sites all over the web, the thoughts going through the theist’s head. United we stand etc, they tried to head f**k us with TAG, we give them this.

 

Truth deserves a megaphone, not a whisper.

 

They are here to convert and play gawd's messenger.

 

Yes, and so shutting them up as soon as possible will save us all a lot of bother. We must face conviction with conviction, our wills and minds are stronger, (mine is anyway). Their audacity is based on faith, ours on fact, surely we can go one better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a demonstration of the kind of method to use. This type always annoy me, but what keeps me from exploding into ironic laughter and disgust is the detached and secure position I’m now in. If all do this, the thing he mostly complains of will disappear, and they’ll lose one more excuse to dismiss our arguments. +Plus the annoyance he will endure will be vast, while our amusement will be bountiful.

 

 

 

Let’s refer to our current example of defiance in the face of defeat simply as “he”.

 

I read your first paragraph and was amazed at how it applied to ATHEIST.

 

He wishes. Notice also how he uses what he thinks is a more insulting term (in block capitals of course), when freethinkers alone were mentioned. By this point the ranter is on automatic. The usual enemy is identified, and the standard mindless tit for tat follows. Like a limb that twitches long after being severed, or a soldier that keeps fighting when all others our dead. Maybe he’s got some sort of ‘Nam like syndrome?

 

Not just the part about “fallacies, half truths and lies”

 

And yet he will fail to supply a fallacy, half truth or lie, except his own of course.

 

but more when you said- “They are often immature mentally and behave like tantruming children, irrational and subjective when it fails to go their way.”

 

I have yet to stand corrected.

 

Go back and read some of the “debates” (for lack of a better word) on evolution, abiogenesis, and the origin of the universe that have been conducted on this site.

 

I of course conducted some of them, so I know he is referring to when a ex-xtian or freethinker loses their temper with an xtian who’s arrogance, ignorance and fallacial nonsense gets the better of them. (Especially when the xtians see all three fields as a single atheistic paradigm, and not science. Combine and conquer being a popular creationist tactic, making it look like they contend with only one subject instead of all scientific fields, and empiricism itself) Maybe they (and even me sometimes) shouldn’t lose their temper, as the theists, perverse and corrupt though they are, genuinely don’t know any better. Yes they take pleasure in what they knows is infuriating behaviour but they innocently believe all they are programmed to, and are at least being true to the lie.

 

However this reaction is part of the reason I created the Manifesto, so as to calm us down. Being the victors, merely engaging in a re-play of the losers mistakes gives one a very different composure. Again, sport is the model. Such “immature” behaviour on our part is always a reaction to having already proven beyond a reasonable doubt why the theist is wrong. But the lack of reasoning or objectivity blinds the particular, (but not all) theist to this. They may choose to focus on the outbursts, forgetting they were preceded by a very thorough defeat on their part. But this is just a coping mechanism, such as the one this theist is using.

 

Bottom line, such outbursts, (when not the understandable knee-jerk reaction on the part of ex-xtians still in pain from what the cult did to them), are the result of the theist’s use of psychological and fallacial techniques used to avoid the reality of defeat. In this case our theist is focusing on the emotional reaction, (ironic given how emotion is all theism is built on). He VERY quickly skimming his claim regarding our own use of fallacies, lies etc. The brief mention is due to an inability to provide examples, as being a theist, he will lack any ability to detect fallacies. (Just accuse others of using them, aping a term he heard but doesn’t understand). Their attempt to show fallacies in our work, often provides more fallacies themselves, oh what fun).

Being unable to tell the difference between truth and lies is an added problem, (but without such a condition they’d have got themselves out of theism long before). Again all we have is a theist in denial, not just of defeat but his inability to handle even the declaration without childishly saying the equivalent of “I know you are but what am I ?” Once more I rest my case.

 

Try to count the number of times the atheists resorted to “F-you, you idiot”.

 

This is of course a superficial complaint, as even if we said this 1 million times a post, if we included full refutations of the theists arguments as well, then we still win, regardless of irrelevant language,. They only count as “ad homonyms” if they’re the basis of the argument, this does not apply to a swear word, no matter were it’s placed, (if Darwin had wrote “xtians are crap heads!” in the middle of Origin of Species it would not have saved Genesis from the myth section of W.H. Smiths). Nor would the previous victories be negating if we fail to refute an exactly identical argument, but resort to nothing but simply swearing in this case. The theist clearly is either unlucky enough to have only seen the “tantrums” we throw and missed the fact that all apologetic efforts have already been made a laughing stock. Or has simply chosen to switch his subconscious to “cognitive dissonance” (maximum setting).

 

I have basically stopped posting here due to the lack of people who are willing to “debate” intelligently.

 

Translation - we kicked is arse. Here he ignores those who have in all good faith offered such debate, and of course the theists who have done fare worse than what he accuses us of. If he thinks only are side get rude, then his screening process must be very thorough. If any theist had managed to “debate” intelligently then I wouldn’t have suggested we declare victory, but such a theist is as much a myth as their Jesus. Quite were he gets the impression theists are even remotely capable of this is beyond even my understanding.

 

Talk about an “endless cycle of unacknowledged victories”.

 

Here he at least he offers good advice, albeit inadvertently. Lets indeed talk about our victories, usually we only mention them when yet another Jesus zombie offers the same spiel, but I suggest going over the lot. As there is essentially as many theistic arguments as there are fallacies, here's a site on them. If our theist goes there, he may get a sense of deja vu and keep silent for a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every degree and point on the spectrum has its apologists. All are wrong, fundies were the easiest to defeat, but even the moderates have their fallacies they cannot exorcise. Hence they too are counted among the slain.

Agreed.

 

What dirt we got on christianity is a better and quicker means of reducing fundamentalism. The moderate and Liberals xtians can't prove anything to other xtians ( fundies) by using scripture so long as they are also presuppin the bible to be the word of a god. How can people prove anything to eachother if all involved are living in fantasy land to begin with. That book should have no support from anyone given how inconsitent it is and who knows what the future could hold in regards new cults. New spin on bigotry and ignorance in our future based on the bible? It can happen.

 

Some folks want to defend science which is a good thing, but so long as many support the bible as the word of a god everyone will have a book with "authority." Because of this yall will probably have a fresh supply of goons to spew the same thing over and over again. Debunking the bible is gonna help as well as keeping record of debates. Keep in mind to, that everyday people don't even know these debates go on. It's the "authority" of the book that we are fighting really. People make laws not science really.

 

Debunking the religion in general is faster than hoping people will convert to a more reasonable brand of xtianity and is the only solution to fundamentalism.

 

(I keep having to edit because I'm silly enough to think people can read my mind. hehe)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nice article there -AUB- I enjoyed it a whole bunch it gave me that nice warm fuzzy feeling inside I think it may have been pride, pride to stand up and say YES I AM and ATHEIST :woohoo::woohoo:

 

 

I know it sounds lame but hey I get excited easily :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The theist clearly is either unlucky enough to have only seen the “tantrums” we throw and missed the fact that all apologetic efforts have already been made a laughing stock. Or has simply chosen to switch his subconscious to “cognitive dissonance” (maximum setting).

This Theist had his argument destroyed more times in a fortnight than any other.

 

I think he needs to drop that setting down a bit, before he turns into Troy... :ugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this