Does this describe much of what we see in debate?

[Zzyzx]

.
Does this describe much of what we see in debate?

[Theists] seem to be totally blinded by a deep desire to support the Bible at all cost.

If the argument is refuted, then the believer will, instead of giving up her faith, switch to a new justifying argument.

The belief doesn't depend on the argument; rather, the argument depends on the belief. The argument is adopted to give the belief cover.

[Neatras]

That's the gist of what I'm getting from my discussions in the science subforum, when discussing evolution.

[ttruscott]

Interesting:

.
Does this describe much of what we see in debate?

[Theists] seem to be totally blinded by a deep desire to support the Bible at all cost.

We also see that non-believers seem to be totally blinded by a deep desire to undermine the Bible at all costs.

If the argument is refuted, then the believer will, instead of giving up her faith, switch to a new justifying argument.

We also see that if the argument is refuted, then the non-believer will, instead of giving up her false pov, switch to a new justifying argument.

The belief doesn't depend on the argument; rather, the argument depends on the belief. The argument is adopted to give the belief cover.

We also see that the belief of an non-believer doesn't depend on the argument; rather, the argument depends on the belief GOD is either unreal or evil. The argument is adopted to give the belief strength.

Who knew that dueling pejoratives can be fun?

[Divine Insight]

We also see that non-believers seem to be totally blinded by a deep desire to undermine the Bible at all costs.

But we don't see this at all. To the contrary, what we see in the case of non-believers are extremely valid points being made that clearly demonstrate extreme problems and contradictions with Biblical Dogma.

Where is there any "cost" in that?

When I say that believes appear to be blinded by a deep desire to support the Bible "at all cost", I mean that they will even go as far as denying actual evidence against the Bible.

This include the denial of science and even the age of the earth in favor of supporting the Biblical picture of reality.

This includes the denial of evolution just in an effort to try to support the Bible.

This includes refusal to confess that the Bible contains extreme contradictions that cannot be rationally resolved. Theists go to great lengths to make up absurd Biblical interpretations that have absolutely nothing at all to do with what is even written in the Biblical dogma just to try to support the Biblical dogma.

For example, we see some theists trying to avoid the problem of babies suffering in this world by proclaiming that there must have been a life prior to this life where these babies had already rejected this God and thus have "sinned" by this definition of sin. But nowhere in the Biblical dogma does it suggest that the people on earth are being reincarnated from some previous life where they had previously sinned.

Ironically, the theists who make up these sorts of "excuses" for the Bible have already recognized and acknowledged that the Bible cannot stand on its own as written and thus the need to make up further explanations that aren't even part of the Biblical Narrative.

That is the type of thing that I'm referring to when I say "at all cost". They will make up anything in an effort to try to salvage the Bible no matter how ridiculous or unsupported it might be.

I need to mention also these these kind of apologetic inventions don't help anyway. For example, a theist who takes the above position that humans had sinned prior to being born on earth may also then try to use this same apology in a debate about how these people came to be sinful in the first place. Could it have been the fault of the creator?

The argument here is that it's not the fault of the creator because these people had already chosen to sin before they were even born. But that apology totally misses the point. These people would still have had to have become sinners prior to having been born on earth. So they still would have been created by this creator prior to have being born on earth and therefore their creator would still be responsible for the fact that they had ever become sinners in the first place.

In other words, these apologies don't even work anyway. They always fail to solve the actual problem. Trying to push all the problems of theology back into an imagined previous life before the creation of earth doesn't help a thing because all these problems would also be pushed back into that imagined life. So the problems still remain.

This is what I mean when I say "At all cost". The theists try to push all their problems under the carpet whilst pretending that they aren't creating a huge bump in the middle of the carpet.

The non-theists simply point to the huge bump in the middle of the theist's carpet. And this doesn't "cost" the non-theists anything because they are being perfectly rational. The non-theists aren't accumulating a huge bump under their carpet that they need to then explain away.

There is no "cost" associated with a non-theist pointing out the absurd contradictions that the theists continue to create. The non-theists don't need to continually make up absurd contradictory stuff in an effort to support their position. So the non-theists aren't making their points "at all cost". They are simply making clearly rational points that don't cost anything.

[Neatras]

To be perfectly honest, neither I nor anyone I know of on this forum has ever been forced to concede a legitimate, damning point against the evolutionary theory that isn't just a mischaracterized quote mine in an attempt to give credibility to the creationist's arguments.

More often than not, the discussion follows one of 2 basic templates.

The first is a rhetorical argument based on basic assertions. The theist asserts that evolution has no evidence, the Bible is true, and highlights the three basic talking points handed down during sermons and "biblical science" youtube videos: [Something cannot come from nothing, evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, and evolution cannot change an animal from one kind to another.]

[This is often contested], with the most relevant answer being that evolution is not intended to discuss the origins of literally everything, nor is it an answer to the origins of life; it was never intended to be. It only describes the process by which life changes over time and adopts the diversity we see today. It's at this point that the argument breaks down into one of [semantics], with legitimate quote mining on the side of the theist. Without a method for engaging the actual scientific theory of evolution, they're left trying to redirect the discussion back to the strawman they've erected in the hopes of distracting from their glaring misapprehension of what science actually is, and the reason for this is simple: If they accept that they were wrong about even this tiny little nugget, they've lost all the credibility they hoped to gather, so that just won't do.

Since this forum isn't very well-equipped for requiring evidence-based assertions, and allows the parties involved to deviate readily into unassociated topics, we find that theists have concocted a very well-established plan, which is the 2nd possible tactic creationists have for discussing evolution: Assert something about evolutionary theory that, from a glance, appears evidence-based. However, either the site they've linked, or the youtube video they've shown is [nothing more than an attack on a strawman which isn't even related to evolution], or the linked article doesn't even support their argument, and they've simply attempted to quote mine yet another small portion to their detriment. Once the assertion is dealt with, they fall back onto the wall in which they have a ready bombardment of tangential points and red herrings that are actually nothing more than a desperate grab for authoritative speech that can't be brought up for the actual discussion at hand. We've seen several examples in recent weeks in which the topic has been thrown to the gutters by a particular individual behaving in a rather noisy manner.

[The Wall] is an attempt at reviving literally every argument made against evolutionary theory. Individually, these could all be discussed, refuted, and tossed aside. But in a large and ugly heap, they form the foundation for a gish gallop, in which the poster is seen as educated, and well-rounded, when in reality all they've done is distract from their inability to address the arguments previously thrown their way.

And so we approach the next aspect of theistic argument-switching: Ignoring the challenges made by non-theists. This is a fun one, because lately the posters have been wising up and pointing out that their challenges are unmet. "Why have you not addressed this portion of my argument?" And this is answered by [silence].

So, ttruscott, how even would you say it is? I'm talking about the number of evasive tactics, smoke-screen rhetorical elements, and ridiculous strawmen presented by either side. Would you say that it's roughly even? That both theists and non-theists are just as likely to misrepresent and twist an argument? Or would you assert that non-theists are MORE likely to perform these awkward, backwards, and dishonest tactics? I'd sure love to see some examples, if that were the case.

I rest in the camp of creationists being the be-all, end-all example of persons and groups dedicated to debating using dishonest tactics.

[Divine Insight]

To be perfectly honest, neither I nor anyone I know of on this forum has ever been forced to concede a legitimate, damning point against the evolutionary theory that isn't just a mischaracterized quote mine in an attempt to give credibility to the creationist's arguments.

I rest in the camp of creationists being the be-all, end-all example of persons and groups dedicated to debating using dishonest tactics.

Exactly, and a very common dishonest tactic is when the creations use the scenario that it's absurd to think that a tornado could hit a junkyard and just happen to create a brand new Cadillac in pristine condition by pure random chance.

Or the claim that if you came upon a house in a desert you would not expect that it just evolved by random chance and the fact that it had been built by an intelligent designer would be obvious.

These are such a gross miss-characterization of evolution that it can only reveal either extreme ignorance, or outright dishonesty.

In all fairness to those who use these types of arguments I should point out that it may not be the fault of the person who is actually making the argument. For example, there are religious schools that actually teach their students these lies. Therefore when their students go out into the world repeating these lies they are neither displaying ignorance or dishonest of their own. They had actually been taught these things by dishonest religious schools. But those religious schools are without excuse to not know that what they are teaching are indeed outright lies. Either that, or the people in charge of those schools are seriously ignorant of evolution theory and science. Because these arguments are a gross miss-characterization of what evolution theory is actually saying. Evolution theory does not say that anything is happening by pure random chance.

[Neatras]

In all fairness to those who use these types of arguments I should point out that it may not be the fault of the person who is actually making the argument. For example, there are religious schools that actually teach their students these lies. Therefore when their students go out into the world repeating these lies they are neither displaying ignorance or dishonest of their own. They had actually been taught these things by dishonest religious schools. But those religious schools are without excuse to not know that what they are teaching are indeed outright lies. Either that, or the people in charge of those schools are seriously ignorant of evolution theory and science. Because these arguments are a gross miss-characterization of what evolution theory is actually saying. Evolution theory does not say that anything is happening by pure random chance.

Yes, I've gotten some good enjoyment out of watching this particular series. It's so strongly presented, and with such a factual basis from a position that theists can't possibly criticize without arguing against religious indoctrination in general. Fossilization, gravity, and all sorts of other topics malignantly twisted to support a narrative that has no basis in reality.

It falls to one resounding question: If the theist has to use such dishonest tactics and debate tricks to try and win, how viable is their position in the first place?

[Divine Insight]

It falls to one resounding question: If the theist has to use such dishonest tactics and debate tricks to try and win, how viable is their position in the first place?

This is the crux of it for sure. And it's not even about "debate" with skeptics, this is the very same question that I was faced with when I was considering becoming a preacher.

The question isn't about debate tricks to try to win a debate. The question is really about being able to explain this religion in a meaningful and compelling way that actually makes sense. This is what a preacher should be able to do, IMHO.

Although some preachers seem to think it's more about convincing people to have "blind faith" and that any means to that goal is acceptable. I totally disagree with that view.

From my perspective if I'm going to preach the religion the very first thing that should be mandatory is that I understand it myself in a way that does not require sweeping anything under the carpet. And if I can't do that, then not only should I not be preaching the religion to others, but there's really no reason why I should believe in it or support it myself. Believing in it on "pure faith" in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it, is not a rational option IMHO.

So there should be no needs for tricks or, misrepresentation of science, or sweeping anything under the carpet. If the religion has any merit of its own at all it should stand on its own without ambiguity, without contradiction, and without any need to reject facts known about reality.

But I've never seen anyone support this religion without resorting to all three of these tactics. Because this religion simply does not stand on its own merit. Period.

Preachers certainly don't have a logical handle on this religion, the bulk of their ministries are based on appealing to emotions of guilt, fear, and/or a simple desire of a person to do the "right thing" where the preacher insists (without any compelling evidence) that the "right thing" to do is accept that the religion is true and fall down at the feet of it's proclaimed demigod savior (again without any justification for why any of this should be necessary)

This religion is based entirely on an emotional appeal to believe in it on PURE FAITH. This is the basis of evangelism. And there's no way I was going to become a preacher who asks people to believe absurd myths on pure faith when there is absolutely no evidence to support them and there exists overwhelming evidence for why they can't possibly be true as written.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 5 by Neatras]

I find your question put to ttruscott:

"So, ttruscott, how even would you say it is? I'm talking about the number of evasive tactics, smoke-screen rhetorical elements, and ridiculous strawmen presented by either side. Would you say that it's roughly even? That both theists and non-theists are just as likely to misrepresent and twist an argument? Or would you assert that non-theists are MORE likely to perform these awkward, backwards, and dishonest tactics? I'd sure love to see some examples, if that were the case. "

interesting, because right now he seems to be avoiding my request that he provide evidence of claims he is making.

[ttruscott]

So, ttruscott, how even would you say it is? I'm talking about the number of evasive tactics, smoke-screen rhetorical elements, and ridiculous strawmen presented by either side.

I don't visit science or evolutionary topics much because my calling is to answer straw man attacks against Christianity or the Bible and teaching believers about PCEC. In religious topics I see much more evasiveness, smoke-screen rhetorical elements on the part of the smug old boys high five non-believers crowd.