Atheists Debate Tactics

Originally posted by DeepThought
Actually they've been having problems with elves in Iceland recently:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27907358

Tactic #2 again. Must be a favorite. 😀

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said, there was no lack of responses, only a lack of responses that you liked.

If, in your mind after reading the thread again you really hold that responses were forthcoming to the subject matter, I wonder how you function in life.
How do you converse with people on topics, when your definition of reality or the situation at hand is so adversely at odds with, well, everyone else around you?

Toward the end of the thread, Halitose jumped in and concisely dismissed the objections of those who you claim were responding to the topic. Something along the lines of reminding the handful of folks who (like yourself) were continually arguing an ancillary point when the OP clearly assumed the veracity of the Bible and its descriptions of God.

The responses I didn't like?
They were replete with objections to the source material or suggestive substitution topics such as the very scholarly magic elves and whatnot.

Hey, I am totally game for any conversation one wishes to have about the trustworthiness of the Scriptures.
I am equally prepared to contrast/compare man's belief in God against such considerations as myths, folk and/or fairy tales.

But that wasn't the intent of the thread, was it?
Very clearly, very specifically, the thread was fashioned with an assumption of the veracity of Scripture and its description of the attributes of God.

This was an opportunity for the believer to learn more about how God's character is the bellwether, the ultimate standard of integrity.
It was also an opportunity for the unbeliever to look under the hood of the Bible's inner workings and judge for themselves whether there be any contradiction, any logical fallacy, any self-cancelling aspect or even a hint of incongruity among His many attributes.

But the poor atheists--- you included--- couldn't even get out of the gate.
They couldn't accept even the first part of a first class condition, let alone anything that follows.

It brings the question: if so many people accept the veracity of the Bible (and in the Western world, far more do than don't) and operate under the assumption of its trustworthiness, why would the atheists who read that thread six years ago--- and even those who are 'representing' here today--- have such a hard time suspending their belief enough to consider the topic at hand and closely scrutinize the same?

If the Bible is true in its depiction of God, which of these attributes are to be rejected, and on what basis?

Originally posted by Penguin
But this has nothing to do with my suggestion that we attempt to have a conversation where we both make strenuous efforts to avoid the tactics you defined in the OP.

As far as I can see, you are using tactic #2 at the moment by directing us at a completely irrelevant thread. You have not explained why that thread has anything to do with the topic at hand. 🙂

--- Penguin

This.
Here is exactly the disconnect, in plain type.
You claim my reference to the thread in question is akin to using tactic #2, when it is very clear that my referencing of the thread was nothing more than a single example of exactly the point of tactic #2.
He says here is something the atheists do on a consistent basis.
I join in agreement and offer an example of the very 'something' by the very 'someones' using tactic #2.

And (somehow) in your book, this is using tactic #2, instead of offering an example of atheists employing it.
So, I guess, the conclusion is that you are using tactic #2.

I think I see how it works now.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
How do you converse with people on topics, when your definition of reality or the situation at hand is so adversely at odds with, well, everyone else around you?

It seems that in this case, it is you that is at odds with everyone around you. In fact, that is your central claim - ie that you started a thread an not one person wanted to discuss it the way you wanted to.

The responses I didn't like?
They were replete with objections to the source material or suggestive substitution topics such as the very scholarly magic elves and whatnot.
So there were responses. A moment ago, you claimed there weren't any.

But that wasn't the intent of the thread, was it?
Very clearly, very specifically, the thread was fashioned with an assumption of the veracity of Scripture and its description of the attributes of God.
Well then don't go around complaining that atheists were not interested. Seriously, what did you expect?

This was an opportunity for the believer to learn more about how God's character is the bellwether, the ultimate standard of integrity.
Yet you claimed in this thread, that atheists (not believers) did not dare to take on one line of what you wrote.

It was also an opportunity for the unbeliever to look under the hood of the Bible's inner workings and judge for themselves whether there be any contradiction, any logical fallacy, any self-cancelling aspect or even a hint of incongruity among His many attributes.
Well maybe nobody was interested. Have you considered that?

It brings the question: if so many people accept the veracity of the Bible (and in the Western world, far more do than don't)
Not true.

and operate under the assumption of its trustworthiness, why would the atheists who read that thread six years ago--- and even those who are 'representing' here today--- have such a hard time suspending their belief enough to consider the topic at hand and closely scrutinize the same?
Because its boring?

If the Bible is true in its depiction of God, which of these attributes are to be rejected, and on what basis?
Who cares?
But I think my comments in that thread did, in fact constitute a reasonable rejection, on the basis that the so called 'attributes' were being defined in a circular was so as to become meaningless.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This.
Here is exactly the disconnect, in plain type.
You claim my reference to the thread in question is akin to using tactic #2, when it is very clear that my referencing of the thread was nothing more than a single example of exactly the point of tactic #2.
He says here is something the atheists do on a consistent basis.
I join in agreement and offer ...[text shortened]...
So, I guess, the conclusion is that you are using tactic #2.

I think I see how it works now.

Ah. Now it becomes clear (2 pages later), why you posted that link. It was a response the the request for examples to back up the OP.

Unfortunately, you did not explain that! All you did was post a link to another thread, with no explanation of why you were posting it. And you posted the link in reply to a completely different question! So it had every appearance of being an attempt at obfuscation. Which is why I concluded that you were using tactic #2.

It was not "very clear" that the thread was an example of tactic #2. It could have been an example of #1, #3, #4 or #5 for all we knew; you gave no explanation of why you had posted it, whether it was to give an example of a tactic or for some other purpose.

Personally, I had assumed it was supposed to be something to do with my request for an honest discussion between us where we both tried to avoid these tactics, since that is the post it was replying to. I was therefore at a loss to comprehend how it was relevant.

If you are going to give examples of these tactics (as you were asked to), then perhaps a few hints might help you:
1) Explain which tactic the link is an example of
2) Link to specific posts, not to an 8-page conversation (or say which posts on which page)
3) Say why the posts you are linking to are examples of the tactic.

Otherwise, you are just using tactic #2.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by josephw


In the context of this forum both statements are virtually identical.

???

This forum's context is spirituality

The statements are very much different.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
???

This forum's context is [b]spirituality

The statements are very much different.[/b]

1) "I claim certainty that no type of god or gods exist"
2) "I claim certainty that the god you believe exists does not exist"

Statement #2 is redundant. The claimant has already stated that they don't believe that any god or gods exist in statement #1. The God that I believe exists would fall into that category.

Instead of debating it I call upon all forum posters to vote their take on this. 😵

Originally posted by josephw
Statement #2 is redundant. The claimant has already stated that they don't believe that any god or gods exist in statement #1. The God that I believe exists would fall into that category.

Instead of debating it I call upon all forum posters to vote their take on this. 😵

You have misunderstood. The claimant has not made both statements, so statement #2, is not redundant.
In fact, the reason why the claimant asked you if you knew the difference, was because he was only claiming #2, and wanted to know if you would incorrectly assume he was claiming #1. (and also whether you were bothered to actually read what gets posted and attempt to understand it).

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have misunderstood. The claimant has not made both statements, so statement #2, is not redundant.
In fact, the reason why the claimant asked you if you knew the difference, was because he was only claiming #2, and wanted to know if you would incorrectly assume he was claiming #1. (and also whether you were bothered to actually read what gets posted and attempt to understand it).

Absurd.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]1) "I claim certainty that no type of god or gods exist"
2) "I claim certainty that the god you believe exists does not exist"

Statement #2 is redundant. The claimant has already stated that they don't believe that any god or gods exist in statement #1. The God that I believe exists would fall into that category.

Instead of debating it I call upon all forum posters to vote their take on this. 😵[/b]

I cannot believe you did not comprehend that you were being asked to show your understanding of the difference of the two statements, so I can only assume you are using tactic #2 again. That is twice now that you have used this tactic in a thread you started in order to accuse atheists of using it!

Either that or you are trying to goad us into accusing you of stupidity and thus enabling you to claim we are using tactic #1.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by josephw
Absurd.

Thats #1.a, #2.c #3b. and #4a all with just one word. Quite an achievement! 🙂

Originally posted by josephw
Absurd.

Yes.
Absurd that attempt to understand it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems that in this case, it is you that is at odds with everyone around you. In fact, that is your central claim - ie that you started a thread an not one person wanted to discuss it the way you wanted to.

[b]The responses I didn't like?
They were replete with objections to the source material or suggestive substitution topics such as the very scho ...[text shortened]... hat the so called 'attributes' were being defined in a circular was so as to become meaningless.

In fact, that is your central claim - ie that you started a thread an not one person wanted to discuss it the way you wanted to.
Gosh, you're so close to it, I bet you can taste it, right?
BDP offered his take on why there is a consistent lack of serious responses on the part of atheists to the topics raised by theists on the forum, by challenging, "Try actually making a serious argument for a change."
He received thunderous thumb-like applause.

My response to what I consider to be his baseless criticism was to quote just one example of a serious thread (not an argument, but a series of statements) which substantiated my rejection of his criticism.
The thread I offered was one of many, many examples over the years wherein atheists willfully and purposely avoided speaking to the topic, but rather offered nothing more than distraction and silliness.

So there were responses. A moment ago, you claimed there weren't any.
Wrong again, despite your immature stab at distinction wrought by trivial semantics.
Quite endearing.
But since you wish to play the semantic game, it wasn't "a moment ago,' it was nearly a week ago when I made the comment.
That's fun, isn't it!

But as was clearly stated in my post, there wasn't a response from an atheist anywhere in the thread which actually dealt with the subject matter.
No response to the subject matter is equated with no response at all, thus my statement.

Yet you claimed in this thread, that atheists (not believers) did not dare to take on one line of what you wrote.
What of it?
That still stands today, now six years later.
Not one of you can stand to look at anything written there.
Can't bear to read those words.
Can't drag yourself to contemplate their meaning...
Even for the sport of trying to find the errors, the contradictions, the gaps in logic or rationality.

Well maybe nobody was interested. Have you considered that?
Only interested in mocking, ridicule and childish behavior apparently.
Not interested in actually considering theology even for expansion of one's own mind, though.
So, in other words, exactly along the lines of the OP of this thread.

But I think my comments in that thread did, in fact constitute a reasonable rejection, on the basis that the so called 'attributes' were being defined in a circular was so as to become meaningless.
Well of course you think so, dear.
You suffer from the same disease afflicting the other atheists herein: only your circular reasoning stands on its own.

Originally posted by Penguin
Ah. Now it becomes clear (2 pages later), why you posted that link. It was a response the the request for examples to back up the OP.

Unfortunately, you did not explain that! All you did was post a link to another thread, with no explanation of why you were posting it. And you posted the link in reply to a completely different question! So it had every ap ...[text shortened]... nking to are examples of the tactic.

Otherwise, you are just using tactic #2.

--- Penguin.

Unfortunately, you did not explain that!
Actually, I did.
Even though my post was a direct response to BDP, it went through a very detailed explanation of why his post lacked the material to hold any water.
The link didn't come until a later post.

Why it wasn't clear to you is uncertain, since the concepts in my post mirrored those found only in tactic #2.
In fact, were you to input the words within my explanation into a thesaurus, you would find many overlapping words as were used in tactic #2.
So not only were the concepts discussed identical, most of the words--- and the words related to the words--- were so similar as to be interchangeable.
Curiously, you were confused.

Personally, I had assumed it was supposed to be something to do with my request for an honest discussion between us where we both tried to avoid these tactics, since that is the post it was replying to. I was therefore at a loss to comprehend how it was relevant.
I posted the link to the thread previously alluded to in response to your offer of an experiment to engage in conversation on a topic, sans any of the undesirables found in the OP.
There's the topic.

Otherwise, you are just using tactic #2.
Thanks for those helpful hints.
A reasonable person following the flow of conversation would not have any problem discerning what was being said or the intentions thereof.
You atheists certainly are good at feigning misunderstanding an awful lot, aren't you?

Originally posted by josephw
Absurd.

A) "I claim certainty that no type of god or gods exist"
B) "I claim certainty that the god you believe exists does not exist"

So, do you regard these two statements as being different or the same?