Non-Theist in the A Room

[Zzyzx]

.
There is a new usergroup entitled “Non-Theist” -- a generic group to include all degrees and conditions of non-acceptance of theism. I requested that we be privileged to participate in the A-Room.

I have a suggestion:

We all tire of dealing over and over with familiar theist claims, dodges, counter-charges, and dance steps designed to keep from admitting their arguments are weak and their “evidence” nothing but hearsay. For instance, we have heard many times about the “eyewitness accounts” of the resurrection. We seem to take turns explaining the meaning of the term and demonstrating that biblical claims do not meet the criteria of being eyewitness accounts.

New members post what they think is something earth-shaking or utterly convincing – not knowing that we have discredited the claim multiple times. More commonly some of the resident fundies repeat “arguments” ad nausea that have been shown to be faulty.

A step toward solution?

Remember the story about old-timers sitting around the general store telling the same jokes so often that they numbered them – then to tell a joke someone would call out a number -- and others would laugh? Perhaps we could do something similar and develop a numbered list to deal with the overworked theist claims and simply cut and paste the reply (with its number, of course).

We already have all or most of the needed replies from when we addressed the issues previously. We could start a thread here to maintain the replies and perhaps update with effective new responses.

What do you think of the idea?

All are invited to join the new usergroup (without renouncing citizenship in other groups).

BTW, I have an improvement for the old guys at the store. They could give laughs a number representing degree of hilarity – and instead of bothering to laugh in response to the joke number they could simply reply with a laugh number.

[Rathpig]

Even putting the humorous aspect of this aside for a moment, it would be a great idea to both expose the fallacious arguments and more easily track the frequency of there use. I can imagine it would be insightful to be able to say with precision that "#7" has been used 20 times this month: "Please refer to this link for a concise rebuttal".


Since I am relatively new here one of the first things that shocked me was that theists were using the horrible, even from their perspective, "argument" that "if you say God - you believe God". I hadn't encountered that since high-school. What makes this worth mention is that even compared to tu quoque, non sequitur, red herring, false dichotomy, false dilemma, and the myriad of fallacies that frequent theist arguments, the use of "say God - believe God" is such a juvenile retort that the politeness rules of these forums do not allow a proper response.

It would be nice to be able to reply with a number and simply say "tsk, tsk". This also may cause the theist groups to actually learn something about their beliefs rather than rely on stock answers and memorized faux-rebuttal.

Great Idea!

[Cathar1950]

I like the ideas guys.
I have often thought about how it seems we have to go over the same stuff over and over. I can understand with the new guys as they are new but the old(not in age but in time on the forum) people keep repeating even if they uhave been refuted or questioned. I think a list or numbered respnses would be a great idea as well as ranking their probablity or worth. It would also be great to have a count of use. I don't recall how many times I had to go back and find what I wrote in reply to something I wrote a year or more ago to the same person over the same subject.
We need some kind of organized database that we can all add to as we go along.
I can hardly keep track of what I write.
Where do we start and how do we get something going?

[Goat]

if you want to make it humerous, you could play either fundy bingo

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/bingo.html

or creationist bingo

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007 ... tioni.html

[McCulloch]

Are any of these tactics aimed at furthering reasoned debate, keeping respect or convincing those who either do not agree with us or who are yet undecided, to see the value of our position?

[Zzyzx]

.

Are any of these tactics aimed at furthering reasoned debate,

Yes, the list of numbered responses calls attention to repeated theist uses of arguments that have been shown to be invalid. Discouraging re-use of those arguments furthers reasoned debate.

keeping respect

I think so because it sends a message that we respect valid arguments and disrespect invalid arguments (particularly when they are repeated ad nausea). There is no more disrespect for our adversaries than presenting a repeated reworded rehash of what we have said so many times before. I think it will make the point rather well and will reduce theist tendencies to reuse the same tired arguments.

or convincing those who either do not agree with us

There is little likelihood, in my opinion, of convincing debate opponents to agree with us no matter what we present. My objective is never to convince or convert theist debate opponents.

or who are yet undecided, to see the value of our position?

Here lies what I see as a reasonable objective – reach the “soft believer” with sound arguments that counter the religious dogma with which nearly all have been indoctrinated since childhood. “Hard believers” are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they cannot change their thinking; however, those who are less rigid may be able to overcome their training to embrace reality.

“Soft-non-believers” also can benefit from what we present to reinforce their lack of belief, to show them that it is okay to not believe, and to give them arguments to use against theism (even if only mentally debated).

When I address our usual adversaries, fanatical and fundamental Christians, I am NOT really talking to them, but to those who read our threads. Pointing out the ridiculous “arguments” of the hostile “defenders of the faith” is likely to be effective when viewed by thinking people.

The proposed numbered list is intended to present very solid arguments and to convey the idea that these arguments have been presented frequently. It will also economize our time by writing the argument once instead of weekly.

The only disadvantage I see is the possibility of discouraging the fanatical fundamentalists from posting their intolerant rants and discrediting themselves and their religion. All we need do is “give them rope” (and ask the right questions) to let them expose the flaws in their own arguments.

Perhaps if the “warrior” group is subdued by confronting the list answers whenever they raise tired arguments, other, more rational or liberal Christians my find a voice and engage in meaningful debate / discussion. Those who do not seek to proselytize, or be “in your face”, or “cram religion down throats” can be very worthy people with whom to exchange ideas.

Capable theist debaters, in my opinion, include Achilles, Cnorman, Tselem, MagusYanam and Greatest I Am and a couple others. Exchanging ideas with them can benefit them, us and untold numbers of readers.

I am not hard and fast on these ideas, what does everyone else think?