Learning and strengthening my arguments

[joshainglis]

Hi Guys,
Been an Atheist for a long time but have only just recently started getting into debates about it.
Always held back before to prevent hurting people's feelings. I'm past that now and have realized that in order to learn, evolve and develop better ideas, I must lay mine on the table in the realm of free speech. I have begun doing so on a Facebook group called the General Discussion Group but have found the opposition to be less than... challenging.

I want to know how to improve my arguments and I figure I have a better chance of learning that here from people who actually know how to argue.

I'm going to post someone else's post followed by my reply and I would genuinely appreciate it if you could poke as many holes in my reasoning, wording, methods, etc as possible so I can learn and develop better ideas and arguments.



The topic is "Why does religion exist?"

They wrote

Did Augustine have to be told how to think? Or Martin Luther? Were C.S. Lewis, JRR Tolkien and Malcolm Muggeridge closeminded religious automatons? Was Jesus an original thinker or a mindless dupe? Anthony Flew, a famous former atheist, concluded, based on astronomical evidence that God must exist. Was he brainwashed into that conclusion? Surely not. Your statement is ridiculous.
Atheism, Secularism and Humanism are empty, futile doctrines. People put as much "faith" in them as in any belief in God.
Has anyone noticed that the more ridiculed and marginalized "people of faith" become, the more we march towards globalism and one-world government? Is this really what we want? Given the track record of Atheist governments i.e Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, do we really want to go that route? Religious institutions are a check on the power of the state.
Adherence to a set of beliefs about God is not unreasonable. Most people who believe in God have done so after careful consideration and questioning. You can do better. <end of rant>

to which I replied

Belief in the supernatural (God/Reincarnation/Spirits/Ghosts/etc) is an erroneous byproduct of well-understood evolutionary adaptations of the human mind.

Andy Thomson (in the above video) uses a great similitude for understanding religion. The Big Mac Meal. This plays on adaptations in our evolution to crave for Sugars (found in ripe fruit), Fat (found in lean game meat) and salt. All of these things are required by our body to function effectively, but also hard to come by. Then, suddenly, a Litre of Cokeacola filled with sugar, a Big Mac with plenty of fat and some chips enveloped in salt is put in front of us. This plays on our evolutionary adaptations in a way that does not leave us healthy.

The Big Mac Meal is a great analogy for Religion. It takes cognitive adaptations (such as decoupled cognition and Hyperactive agency detection) that evolved to serve certain purposes and uses them to serve it's own, not unlike a disease (may sound harsh, but the analogy is valid)

Now, as for Dale's statement of "Atheism, Secularism and Humanism are empty, futile doctrines. People put as much "faith" in them as in any belief in God."
Allow me to run through some definitions so we know what we are talking about.

Atheism
"¢ the acceptance that there is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural.

Secularism
"¢ denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

Humanism
"¢ an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

Doctrine
"¢ a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church, political party, or other group

Faith
"¢ strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. ie Belief without evidence

Belief
"¢ an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists

So first of all, Atheism and Secularism are not beliefs. Quite the opposite in fact. And how anyone can take issue with Humanism is beyond me.
However, I'm going to assume that Dale's misguided swipe was actually aimed at what Thunderf00t ( http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t ) has coined as PEARLists: those who base their beliefs on Physical Evidence And Reasoned Logic. So from here on in I will use this term.
Now, please note the absolute logical fallacy of Pearlists having "Faith" which is by definition the ANTITHESIS of Pearlism.
Furthermore, to claim that Pearlism's "Doctrine" (a very religiously loaded term), which is born of the Scientific Method, is Futile, belies an ignorance of Brobdingnagian proportions!

And as for Dale's other statement "Given the track record of Atheist governments i.e Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, do we really want to go that route?"
First of all, the Nazi's were not atheists if you have any doubt of this whatsoever see the picture gallery at http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm and also to show that the Nazi Govenment had the full support of the Vatican http://www.concordatwatch.eu/showkb.php?org_id=858&kb_header_id=752&order=kb_rank%20ASC&kb_id=1211
Secondly, it will do you no good to try to compare the body-counts of Atheism vs Religion as, while it can be claimed that both Stalin and Pol Pot were Atheist (though certainly not Pearlist), none of their atrocities were carried out in the name of Atheism. They were simply Psychopaths who happened to not believe in a Deity. While on the other hand, the amount of murder carried out both implicitly and explicitly in the name of religion is staggering. So I do not recommend you attempt to follow that line of reasoning as history is very much against you.

"Adherence to a set of beliefs about God is not unreasonable. Most people who believe in God have done so after careful consideration and questioning." Based on my experience with "people of faith" and my current (very basic) understanding of developmental cognition I find your statement to be highly fallacious. See this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg if you wish to understand exactly why most people who believe in God/Reincarnation/Spirits/Ghosts/etc do so not because they have honestly considered it, but because it is simply easier for them to do so.

I would also strongly recommend watching:
potholer54's series "From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy" http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DB23537556D7AADB
cdk007's series "Evidence FOR Evolution and Against Creationism" http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F626DD5B2C1F0A87
AronRa's series "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=126AFB53A6F002CC
And Thunderf00t's series is Awesome "Why do people laugh at creationists?" http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AC3481305829426D

And I'll leave you all with a quote from Thunderf00t from his video "The Mirror of Mankind" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2YyNr9x_jE

"Many religiously minded folk will claim that morality is due to God in some way.
However we know, and have known for some time that human morality is really quite plastic and is not supernatural in origin. The Milgram tests (about 40 yrs old now) have recently been replicated and show a large portion of society are willing to torture or even inflict potentially fatal punishment if instructed to do so by an authority figure.
To pretend that all morality is contained in some random chapters in a bronze age story book really does restrains our ability to more fully understand our behaviours and how actions, such as those shown in this video may be avoided in the future."

Thanks in advance

Josha

 

[MachineSp1rit]

okey first of all, if u want to argue about it with believers that's fine, but don't expect that u will succeed at any rate.

why? first of all they really is no proof that does does not exist, though it is highly unlikely that god is "who" people imagine him, a white-bearded middle-aged person in the clouds, that is so much not enough for them. reminded me of one redicilous and curious thingy, when airplanes where invented church was Radically against them, they would think that pilots would see god there, a perfect example of how stupid can people get.

second, i've opened a small topic in Philosophy where Ozymandyus explained why people refuse to change their bfundamental beliefes no matter how absurd can they sometimes be. so u will reach no luck with re-assuring anybody about existance of god.

 

[King of NH]

I think you did an excellent job. Some changes I would make: Thunderf00t is obviously an academic of some merit, but due to his popular fame, I would avoid using him as an academic source. Citing his 'Mirror Video' was quite appropriate though, since he made a very strong case without requiring an acceptance of his particular expertise. Again, I do not doubt TF's academic qualifications at all, but you should perhaps use more theist/atheist ambiguous experts when you can. If the science is good, their religious affiliation won't matter. It starts you off on a better foot: "We can agree that x is true..." For this same reason, I would avoid citing Dawkins directly when debating a creationist because the creationist will disagree with Dawkins on principal, regardless of the facts. I still admire Dawkins as an academic authority and would cite him in more literate circles.

The second change I would make is to all but ignore the "Hitler was an atheist" attack. Don't bring up the numbers because they see hope that they can win that game. Even if Christians were peaceful, it doesn't make any of their dogmas true. I simply reply that Hitler was a Catholic, as history says. If they have discovered that thousands of historians are wrong, I would love to be the second person to ever hear this evidence. Since the claim is false, it is easy to follow up with discrediting each of their evidentiary points.

Still, excellent job. My points are minor and your reply was still well said, in my opinion. :mrgreen:

 

[GoodKat]

The second change I would make is to all but ignore the "Hitler was an atheist" attack.

I wouldn't, I would use it to stage my counter-attack with quotes from Mein Kampf

"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933

"Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Here we have Adolf Hitler explicitly stating that he opposed and oppressed atheism, acknowledging the manipulative power of faith, and declaring his motivations to be theistic.

 

[joshainglis]

Hi Guys,
Thanks heaps for the feedback

okey first of all, if u want to argue about it with believers that's fine, but don't expect that u will succeed at any rate.

My motivation isn't so much to convert believers as I know that they are blinded by faith. If they can base their entire belief system without a shred of evidence, what hope will evidence have of changing their minds when it is held in such low esteem by them. I'm more motivated by the simple pleasure of pointing out idiocy where I see it and developing my arguments. Plus, it is extremely fascinating observing the mental backflips and blind-spots the supernaturalists display

Some changes I would make: Thunderf00t is obviously an academic of some merit, but due to his popular fame, I would avoid using him as an academic source. Citing his 'Mirror Video' was quite appropriate though, since he made a very strong case without requiring an acceptance of his particular expertise. Again, I do not doubt TF's academic qualifications at all, but you should perhaps use more theist/atheist ambiguous experts when you can. If the science is good, their religious affiliation won't matter. It starts you off on a better foot: "We can agree that x is true..." For this same reason, I would avoid citing Dawkins directly when debating a creationist because the creationist will disagree with Dawkins on principal, regardless of the facts. I still admire Dawkins as an academic authority and would cite him in more literate circles.

Thanks for the tips Pity though, because I would love to throw some TF at the creationists every now and then

"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."
- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933

"Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain. It lacks the stability which can only rest in a fanatical outlook."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Awesome Quotes. Thanks!



Any other general advice from anyone in debating the supernaturalists?
What about the non-religions spiritualists who believe in Spirits and ghosts and the like?

 

[WolfAU]

Some good stuff here...
http://leagueofreason.forums-free.com/when-debating-a-theist-t1127.html
at the old forum. I can't really think of much to add to from my old posts.

Also when debating, try to choose your battles carefully and keep in mind what your goal is. Don't let it become "I'm right and you're stupid", don't let it become about pride or ego or trying to humiliate them. Keep in mind that their likely goal will be to either convince themselves that their arguments have merit, convert you or humiliate you (ie keeping this in mind helps analyse their choice of topics).

Also don't bother trying to convert them then and there, a belief that they've held for years, many have held since birth, is not going to change in one afternoon, and the only person who can win them over is themselves, just address the core issues of their faith, the core misconceptions about atheism, and encourage them to seek real answers and show them where... assuming your goal is conversion, if its purely an academic exercise or for fun, go nuts.

Also look up terminology, ie terms like 'the problem of evil', 'Pascals wager' etc. Also some basic philosophy helps too.

 

[GoodKat]

Before I debate anyone personally, I always ask them if they think their beliefs could be wrong, and if they would be willing to change them were I to prove them wrong. If they say no, I don't waste my time.