Handicap Aids for Weak Apologetic Debaters

[Zzyzx]

.
It is unfair to expect or require that apologists debate fairly, honorably and ethically because:

a) Theirs is the weak position in debate that is unsupported by evidence or reason

b) They are usually unaccustomed to having claims and statements questioned or challenged, particularly by non-believers

c) They are burdened with defending strange supernatural ideas by Bronze Age storytellers (later codified by religious fanatics)

Since Christian Apologetics has been demonstrated incapable of competing with Non-Theistic views in fairly moderated debate, several advantages are assumed by the weak side. To wit, Apologists assume that they are allowed to:


1. Use a single source of information without substantiation or validation

2. Use the source to "prove" itself without acknowledging that as circular reasoning

3. Claim that citing a source that cannot be verified constitutes "evidence"

4. Maintain that a source known to contain error is "true"

5. Interpret the source to mean anything that will support their "argument"

6. Make insulting statements provided they can be attributed to "god"

7. Create new and novel definitions of words

8. Claim "divine guidance" for their source and for themselves

9. Demean opposing beliefs and convictions

10. Assume an attitude of superiority based upon religious beliefs

11. Refuse to substantiate any claims

12. Preach in lieu of debate

13. Proselytize under the guise of debate

14. Assume that everyone must follow some form of dogma and doctrine (especially Atheists)

15. Act indignant and self-righteous if religious views and "truths" are challenged in debate

16. Use Argumentum ad Populum as though it was a valid argument

17. Demand that claims be accepted "unless proven false"

18. Duck uncomfortable questions

19. Use any debate tactic or trick to promote and defend religion

20. Be dishonest if necessary to defeat "enemies of god"

21. Use Special Pleading by evoking "god" as an authority

22. Claim special knowledge or insight based upon religious belief

23. Claim knowledge of science based upon study of theology and doctrine

24. Identify religious promotional literature as "truth"

25. Regard all opposing views and individuals as inferior or "heathen"

26. Ignore significant points made by opponents

27. Use personal opinion in lieu of non-existent evidence

28. Refer to spiritualism and/or fantasy as being real

29. Claim Josephus as "independent verification" that Jesus lived – even though credible theologians consider the Testimonium Flavium (reference to Jesus) to be an insertion (fraud).

30. Refer to invisible, undetectable super beings as real without proof

31. Promise rewards in an "afterlife" to those who agree to convert to their religion

32. Threaten punishment n an "afterlife" for anyone who refuses to worship "gods"

33. Refer to an "afterlife" as though it was real – even though no evidence exists.

34. Consider "Christianity" as a unified group even though it consists of tens of thousands of denominations, sects, splinter groups and cults that differ (often significantly) in dogma and worship practices

35. Refuse to define or identify "god"

36. Refuse to identify a means to distinguish between "true gods" and "false gods"

37. Claim superior knowledge of "the bible" based upon church affiliation and bible belief rather than actual bible study

38. Claim that "god" is a loving, forgiving, "father in heaven" in spite of clear biblical description of an angry, vengeful, hostile, warlike, genocidal actions

39. Express unfamiliarity and hostility toward anything identified as (or suspected to be) science (since science is viewed as the enemy of religion)

40. Demand that all pro-Christianity claims be accepted unless proven false beyond all doubt

41. Reject all anti-Christianity claims until proven true beyond all doubt

42. Reject all claims and stories by competing religions without considering their merits

43. Refuse to define "Christianity"

44. Refer to "Real Christians" without providing a definition of the term or any means to identify such people

45. Regard, "because I say so" as final proof of any religious point

46. Regard, "the bible says so" as absolute, unquestionable truth

47. Use dishonest or deliberately misleading claims or answers to questions if necessary to convince others that the religionist positions are true and correct



Add some

[McCulloch]

Are you a slow learner? Have you just figured this out?

[Cathar1950]

Are you a slow learner? Have you just figured this out?

It is a good start. It is nice to have a list so I do't have to go over and over some of this stuff over and over again.
We need to sart somekind of database.

[JoeyKnothead]

As I was reading that I kept thinking about Ed McMahon telling "Karnac the Magnificent", (paraphrased) 'Here is the complete list, in it's entirety, all the gathered and collected wisdom'. And of course there would always be something else to add, as pointed out by Zzyzx.

I would like to add "Godwan's Law". With an 'a' to signify Satan. Pet peeve of mine, I have my reasons.

We need to create an apologist's bingo game. Or better yet a drinking game.

[OnceConvinced]

Great list. A handy one. I've copied and pasted it and will keep a link for it so that it's available as an on-line resource.

I think you've covered all the obvious ones. I'll have to think about it.

[OnceConvinced]

Similar to this one here...
37. Claim superior knowledge of "the bible" based upon church affiliation and bible belief rather than actual bible study


Claim superior understanding of "the bible" based on alleged possession of the Holy spirit

[Cathar1950]

I didn't see it but I could have missed it but there is this problem of when you disagree or reject some dogma or doctrine then you are disagreeing with God or insulting God when they say something stupid.

[OnceConvinced]

I didn't see it but I could have missed it but there is this problem of when you disagree or reject some dogma or doctrine then you are disagreeing with God or insulting God when they say something stupid.

How about:

Claim that if you are arguing against me, you are arguing against God.

or

Invoke the phrase "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."

or something along those lines. I think there is another phrase I hear all the time.
"God makes the rules, I don't" or something like that.

Maybe it's covered by 45 and 46