The Unofficial Rules For Religious Debate

[X-posted to several relevant newsgroups]

The Unofficial Rules For Religious Debate

#1 The burden of proof is always on your opponent, even when it isn't.

#2 Your opponent is always somehow wrong, even when they're not.

#3 It is notoriously difficult to determine exactly what constitutes
"proof." Exploit this relentlessly by claiming your opponent hasn't
proved a thing.

#4 If your opponent appeals to authorities such as theologians,
scientists, or philosophers it is never valid; if you do it then it is
valid.

#5 When your opponent attacks you personally, it's always an ad
hominem. If you do it, then it clearly isn't an ad hominem.

#6 Creation/Evolution is highly improbable, but here we are. Therefore
Creation/Evolution must have happened.

#7 If you are a theist, you are free to claim that a god speaks
directly to your mind or heart. If you are a nontheist, you are free
to claim that theists who receive communication from a god must be
suffering from a socially acceptable psychosis.

#8 If you are a theist, you are free to claim that nontheists do not
have any morals or ethics. If you are a nontheist, you are free to
bring Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, and Invisible Pink
Unicorns into the debate at every opportunity.

#9 Your opponent's personal experiences are never valid; but your
personal experiences are always valid.

#10 When your opponent makes an argument and you do not have a good
counter-argument, you should force your opponent to define any terms
that you think are sufficiently vague, preferably with an encyclopedia
article or a 20 page definition. Repeat the process at your leisure.

#11 If you are a theist, you are free to claim that most people
throughout history have believed in a god or gods; if you are a
nontheist, you are free to retort that most people throughout history
believed the sun revolved around the earth.

#12 When your opponent wants to make their beliefs public policy, it's
always wrong. When you want to make your beliefs public policy, it's
always right.

#13 Scientists who believe what your opponent believes are clearly
wrong. Scientists who believe what you believe are clearly right.

#14 Argue relentlessly that your opponent is closed-minded, but that
you are not.

#15 Your opponent did not come by their beliefs rationally. But of
course you came by your beliefs rationally.

#16 If you are a theist, exploit the fact that nontheists can't
explain how life arose from nonlife. If you are a nontheist, accuse
the theist of appealing to a "god of the gaps."

#17 The fact that people have killed in the name of your beliefs does
not disprove your beliefs. But people who killed in the name of your
opponent's beliefs disproves your opponent's beliefs.

#18 Your opponent's scholars are always wrong. Your scholars are
always right.

#19 When your opponent uses an argument that makes no sense to you,
laugh at them and call them stupid; when you use an argument that
makes no sense to your opponent, laugh at them and call them stupid.

#20 Your opponent is clearly nuts, but you are not.


There you have it! As long as you scrupulously adhere to these rules,
you can engage in hours of unproductive, time-wasting debates with
your opponent. Feel free to add more if you are so inclined.

~Sly

-------
Sam Campbell III
Professional Dilettante
www.livejournal.com/~slyfoot/

On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 07:53:43 GMT, fakemail.RemoveThis@fakemail.net (Slyfoot),
Message ID: <407261d8.399728750.RemoveThis@news1.news.adelphia.net> wrote in
alt.atheism;

>[X-posted to several relevant newsgroups]
>
>The Unofficial Rules For Religious Debate

(chuckling)

Some minor tweaks, if I may.

>#1 The burden of proof is always on your opponent, even when it isn't.

The burden of proof is always on your non-theist opponent, even when it
isn't.


>#2 Your opponent is always somehow wrong, even when they're not.


Your non-theist opponent is always somehow wrong, even when they're
not

>#3 It is notoriously difficult to determine exactly what constitutes
>"proof." Exploit this relentlessly by claiming your opponent hasn't
>proved a thing.

It is notoriously difficult to determine exactly what constitutes
"proof." Exploit this relentlessly by claiming your non-theist opponent
hasn't proved a thing.

Proof only exists in mathematics. Evidence (or the lack of) applies in
other situations. Therefore....

It is notoriously difficult to determine exactly what constitutes
"evidence." Exploit this relentlessly by claiming your non-theist
opponent hasn't provided such evidence.

3a; Your non-theist opponent will usually request an actual definition
of the g-o-d letter string-one that doesn't; beg the question(s),
handwave furiously, and does provide information. The theist must, at
all costs, divert the focus from this foundational question.

>#4 If your opponent appeals to authorities such as theologians,
>scientists, or philosophers it is never valid; if you do it then it is
>valid.

If your non-theist opponent appeals to authorities such as theologians,
scientists, or philosophers it is never valid. If you do it then it is
valid.

>#5 When your opponent attacks you personally, it's always an ad
>hominem. If you do it, then it clearly isn't an ad hominem.

When your non-theist opponent attacks you personally, it's always an ad
hominem. If you do it, then it clearly isn't an ad hominem.

>#6 Creation/Evolution is highly improbable, but here we are. Therefore
>Creation/Evolution must have happened.

Note for theist: You must divert attention from the request for
objective supporting evidence the universe was manufactured, much less
OSE for the claimed manufacturer.

>#7 If you are a theist, you are free to claim that a god speaks
>directly to your mind or heart. If you are a nontheist, you are free
>to claim that theists who receive communication from a god must be
>suffering from a socially acceptable psychosis.

Note for theist: You must divert attention from the observation
'voices' go away via proper medication.

>#8 If you are a theist, you are free to claim that nontheists do not
>have any morals or ethics. If you are a nontheist, you are free to
>bring Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, and Invisible Pink
>Unicorns into the debate at every opportunity.

Note for theist: Make sure when objective supporting evidence for the
lack of morals/ethics for specific christians you state "The person
wasn't a TRUE CHRISTIAN(tm)."

When your non-theist opponent then points out your lack of morals/ethics
demonstrated by your "not a true christian" statement, ignore it and
keep yammering about having a 'moral compass.'

>#9 Your opponent's personal experiences are never valid; but your
>personal experiences are always valid.

Your non-theist's opponent's personal experiences are never valid; but
your personal experiences are always valid.

>#10 When your opponent makes an argument and you do not have a good
>counter-argument, you should force your opponent to define any terms
>that you think are sufficiently vague, preferably with an encyclopedia
>article or a 20 page definition. Repeat the process at your leisure.

When your non-theist opponent makes an argument and you do not have a
good counter-argument, you should force your opponent to define any
terms that you think are sufficiently vague, preferably with an
encyclopedia article or a 20 page definition. Repeat the process at your
leisure.

Follow-up for theists: Ensure you terminally ignore anything the
non-theist says on the subject and keep repeating your mindless mantra.

>#11 If you are a theist, you are free to claim that most people
>throughout history have believed in a god or gods; if you are a
>nontheist, you are free to retort that most people throughout history
>believed the sun revolved around the earth.

Follow-up for theists: You must ignore the fact holy books get lots of
things wrong whether through ignorance, or the most spotlit lies. Keep
hammering your 'point' parrot-like.

>#12 When your opponent wants to make their beliefs public policy, it's
>always wrong. When you want to make your beliefs public policy, it's
>always right.

When your non-theist opponent wants to make their lack-of- belief public
policy, it's always wrong. When you want to make your beliefs public
policy, it's always right.

Note to theists: You must constantly and unrepentantly bear false
witness and indicate lack-of-belief is a belief and that the US
Constitution (where appropriate) is irrelevant and immaterial.

Note to theists 2: You are guided by the saints in this matter.

"We should always be disposed to believe that that which
appears to us to be white is really black, if the
hierarchy of the church so decides."

- St. Ignatius Loyola
- Exercita spiritualia / 1541

Clearly the person who accepts the Church as
an infallible guide will believe whatever the
Church teaches."

- St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica -

/end quote

Of course, the above clashes with;

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens,
and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the
stars and even their sizes and distances, and this knowledge he holds
with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and
disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about
such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We
should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation,
lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to
scorn."

- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim" (The Literal
Meaning of Genesis)

....but don't worry as it's 2 against 1 here.

>#13 Scientists who believe what your opponent believes are clearly
>wrong. Scientists who believe what you believe are clearly right.

Scientists who can demonstrate via objective supporting evidence what
your non-theist opponent states are clearly wrong. 'Scientists' who
believe what you believe are clearly right.

>#14 Argue relentlessly that your opponent is closed-minded, but that
>you are not.

Argue relentlessly that your non-theist opponent is closed-minded, but
that you are not even though all the evidence demonstrated through the
interchange shows the opposite is the case.

>#15 Your opponent did not come by their beliefs rationally. But of
>course you came by your beliefs rationally.

Keep as your mantra, your opponent did not come by their lack-of-beliefs
rationally. But of course you came by your beliefs rationally.

Note to theists: The evidence demonstrating the reverse is true is
never to be acknowledged.

>#16 If you are a theist, exploit the fact that nontheists can't
>explain how life arose from nonlife. If you are a nontheist, accuse
>the theist of appealing to a "god of the gaps."

Note to theist: You must always ignore the demonstration the 'god of
the gaps' is accurate and must mindlessly keep hammering on a response
of "I don't know" isn't an answer. {even though it is an answer and an
honest one} If the non-theist's response is the above ignore it.

>#17 The fact that people have killed in the name of your beliefs does
>not disprove your beliefs. But people who killed in the name of your
>opponent's beliefs disproves your opponent's beliefs.


The fact that people have killed in the name of your theistic belief(s)
does not disprove your beliefs. But non-theist people who killed
demonstrate their 'lack of a moral compass.'

>#18 Your opponent's scholars are always wrong. Your scholars are
>always right.

The non-theist's scholars are always wrong-even when objective
supporting evidence indicates they're correct. The drooling idiots of
the Discovery Institute, ICR, and other uneducated folks' 'scholarship'
are always right.

>#19 When your opponent uses an argument that makes no sense to you,
>laugh at them and call them stupid; when you use an argument that
>makes no sense to your opponent, laugh at them and call them stupid.

When your non-theist opponent uses an argument, with objective
supporting evidence, or uses your own 'holy tome' to be in
error/contradict itself, that shows your assertion(s) to be in error
laugh at them and call them stupid.

When you use an argument that is contradictory/demonstratably in
error/other and your non-theist opponent points it out, laugh at them
and call them stupid.

>#20 Your opponent is clearly nuts, but you are not.

The non-theist opponent is always nuts. That their statements are
objectively supported is irrelevant and immaterial. Point out that
'clarity' in thought comes from faith, not reason.

Gleefully point to the 'authorities' below to 'validate' your point.

Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.
Martin Luther

I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless
they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving
them in the heart of the youth.
Martin Luther

Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.
Martin Luther

Reason is the enemy of faith.
Martin Luther

Proverbs 1 (kjv)
7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools
despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 14:33
Wisdom resteth in the heart of him that hath understanding: but that
which is in the midst of fools is made known.

1 Corinthians 2
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the
power of God.

>There you have it! As long as you scrupulously adhere to these rules,
>you can engage in hours of unproductive, time-wasting debates with
>your opponent. Feel free to add more if you are so inclined.
>
>~Sly
>
>-------
>Sam Campbell III
>Professional Dilettante
>www.livejournal.com/~slyfoot/




Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"

When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert

alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}