The best defence against an argument like this?

[borrofburi]

A general problem with a situation like this is you will end up throwing logic at a position that is formed irrationally and it is going to do very little. The reason is I highly doubt that argumentation like this is the foundation of why they believe. It's most likely post hoc rationalization and they might not even realize it. Indoctrination starts at such a very early age I doubt many believers could truly identify the when and why behind their beliefs. The subtle influences of instinctive trust in one's parents, intuitive extraction from social actions (praying/worship), and emotional attachment are too difficult to track and results in a later experience as simply having had a "gut" feeling.

So like I said you are throwing logic at a decade's worth of social engraving and decades more of self-affirmation.

It can be worse than these subtle ones, I'm watching my father and step mother actively indoctrinate their most recent set of children: before they can even speak they are taught to pray before dinner, and all other manner of rituals. These children have nearly no chance (well, except that they have a couple of siblings, such as myself, who will run counter to these, but I still doubt it) at all of breaking free of such extremely deep and early indoctrination.

 

[borrofburi]

Thanks you all very much for the replies, they really help! I think I'm gonna listen to some of you and, at least, don't discuss this stuff with my mother anymore. The rest on my mothers side are very religious..I won't back down if one of them makes an unsupportable claim.

I deal with this as well; some of the "closer" cousins of mine actively worship glenn beck (they would object to the term, however it is only slightly inaccurate) and bill o reily. But I don't object when they say something unsupportable (usually I politely bow out of the conversation in some way or another); when it becomes a crazy, and often objectively wrong, assertion I *might* say something (for instance, they were in support of a local school banning inter-sex hugging, I was not able to allow that one to slide (for personal reasons, if it had not been for kind female friends giving me hugs when I was down I would have been so much worse off in high school)).

But generally, I let things go because it's not worth it; I have a good idea of what they say when I'm not in the room (one of my cousins is generally quite sane, and will sometimes complain about what they say about me behind my back), and I know that generally anything I say is some proof of the evil attributes of those who have gotten a bit lost off the path of the glorious divine creator. The ironic thing... well all the ironic things are generally effects of ad-hoc rationalizations; the primary thing that bothers me is that they aren't consistent. After an argument in which I "win" on, say, scientific stuff the complaint will be about how I think I know everything; after a discussion that ends in "I don't know", the complaint will be about how I can dare deny their baldfaced assertions without anything to replace them.

My mother even said: No matter what you say, you can't change my mind!

I would give up right then. She doesn't want to know. Usually in a non-hostile discussion with theists, if the topic comes up about my beliefs or why I don't believe in a god or gods, I make them answer two questions before I move on (otherwise I refuse conversation with them): (1) if I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that god did not exist, that your entire religion was wrong, would you really want to know? Would you, can you, be ok with losing your belief in god? (2) Is there any possible evidence that would convince you that you were wrong? Can there possibly be any evidence that would convince you that you're wrong?... Sometimes I skip question 2, the point of the question is to learn if the theist is willing to give me the same courtesies I give them: I would want to know if I were wrong, I would be ok with being wrong, and there are pieces of evidence (which I am quite certain they don't have) that I know would convince me; I am open minded to the idea of god, I just don't see any evidence. Unless a theist is open minded to the idea of not-god, then there is no point in talking with them...

Sorry, that got a bit long winded. Normally I would go back and cut out the irrelevancies, but I'm in a hurry at the moment.

they haven't forgotten about me and ask me frequently how I would feel about a return to that church.

Sounds like they care.

The last guy told me he would become an selfish prick if he would reject God and therefore his morality came from scripture.....he kinda scared me

Give up on him too.

They even promised me a sermon about evolution in which I could participate in open debate for a couple hundred people. I might just do that anyway!

My advice: don't do it. There are a number of reasons not to, from a hostile viewership, to the problem that this preacher is good at rhetoric because he does it once a week... But I personally often refuse to debate *any* scientific topic in person, because it is imposisble to cite sources: in person there is no evidence (unless you come with a large folder, but even then it could be fabricated), there are only claims to evidence, and whoever claims harderer or claims it louderer, "wins". I wanted to talk to an ID proponent who is in entomology, just as a friendly discussion (friend of a friend), and he *refused* to do it through email essentially accusing me of wanting to flame him (or, more precisely, "I find that people are more likely to be unnecessarily hostile through non-personal communication"), and I refused to meet in person because of the lack of evidence and sources (and because I had good reason to suspect he was good at emotional manipulation games), so that ended that.

Sorry for that also being unpolished and rambly... Anyway, the point is: you probably shouldn't do it.

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

They even promised me a sermon about evolution in which I could participate in open debate for a couple hundred people. I might just do that anyway!

Do it. It's gonna be great, I guarantee it. Well, for us, that is. It's probably not gonna be fun for you and you won't convince anyone, but debates are good to sharpen your wits and for us onlookers on the sidelines it provides plenty of amusement.

Funny though, I didn't think there were that many religious people like that over here in Holland. But perhaps you live in a small town, somewhere far away from the big cities, where people still wear long black stockings and the pastor is drinking ouwe klare from a coffeecup...

 

[Jaguar]

My advice: don't do it. There are a number of reasons not to, from a hostile viewership, to the problem that this preacher is good at rhetoric because he does it once a week... But I personally often refuse to debate *any* scientific topic in person, because it is imposisble to cite sources: in person there is no evidence (unless you come with a large folder, but even then it could be fabricated), there are only claims to evidence, and whoever claims harderer or claims it louderer, "wins". I wanted to talk to an ID proponent who is in entomology, just as a friendly discussion (friend of a friend), and he *refused* to do it through email essentially accusing me of wanting to flame him (or, more precisely, "I find that people are more likely to be unnecessarily hostile through non-personal communication"), and I refused to meet in person because of the lack of evidence and sources (and because I had good reason to suspect he was good at emotional manipulation games), so that ended that.

I agree with borrofburi here. One could say that negating to a debate is a sign your point cannot be defended. I don't debate in front of big crowds, I rather a talk among a small group, and that's considering I pride myself at my rethoric and public speaking in Spanish (my first language). But consider the following:
1.- From reading previous posts, I certainly think you are not entirely qualified to make a good defense. Don't take it as an insult, it's just that the "nature's beauty is proof of God" argument is textbook refutal, and if you don't grasp that right on, you might have a problem with trickier questions.
2.- You are probably going against a man with a lot of experience in public speaking, and then it becomes a case similar to a trial: the truth takes a second place behind the ability of the lawyer to convince the audience.
3.- Related to the previous one, you are probably going against a hostile crowd. As soon as someone says "Evolution" they crisp and see you as a deviant already. Even if you manage to outwitt the other guy, you are not going to convince them.
4.- Escalation is also into consideration. Let's say you win the debate, well, religious people have a last barrier of defense: the cliff denial. They might be right on the edge of doubting their religion, but then fear creeps in, and causes their brian to shut off thoughts and go into irrational denial. Not only will they not acknowledge your victory, but will hate you more for showing them they are wrong. You might shake a few minds, but it's likely the overall mass regroups and re-assimilates these doubtful.
5.- It really makes no diference. Getting into an open debate with a creationist is exactly what they want because that gives their stand a respectability in wouldn't have otherwise. I am what some call a "weak atheist", it means I don't actively deny the existance of god or gods, but I dobt it (for a religious person, it makes no difference, of course) and ultimately, the existence of god ot the truthness in evolutions doesn't reside in who wins and individual debate.

Now, if you already committed or really want to do it anf you feel you are up to the task, or just you had enough of their religious BS, then go ahead. At least get it of your chest. You can't let negative emotions get the best of you or you'll be just like them. My advice is that you prepare yourself in basic philosophy and logic construction besides evolution.

- The Jaguar

 

[DutchLiam84]

Funny though, I didn't think there were that many religious people like that over here in Holland. But perhaps you live in a small town, somewhere far away from the big cities, where people still wear long black stockings and the pastor is drinking ouwe klare from a coffeecup...

You have PM...in Dutch!

I agree with borrofburi here. One could say that negating to a debate is a sign your point cannot be defended. I don't debate in front of big crowds, I rather a talk among a small group, and that's considering I pride myself at my rethoric and public speaking in Spanish (my first language). But consider the following:
1.- From reading previous posts, I certainly think you are not entirely qualified to make a good defense. Don't take it as an insult, it's just that the "nature's beauty is proof of God" argument is textbook refutal, and if you don't grasp that right on, you might have a problem with trickier questions.
2.- You are probably going against a man with a lot of experience in public speaking, and then it becomes a case similar to a trial: the truth takes a second place behind the ability of the lawyer to convince the audience.
3.- Related to the previous one, you are probably going against a hostile crowd. As soon as someone says "Evolution" they crisp and see you as a deviant already. Even if you manage to outwitt the other guy, you are not going to convince them.
4.- Escalation is also into consideration. Let's say you win the debate, well, religious people have a last barrier of defense: the cliff denial. They might be right on the edge of doubting their religion, but then fear creeps in, and causes their brian to shut off thoughts and go into irrational denial. Not only will they not acknowledge your victory, but will hate you more for showing them they are wrong. You might shake a few minds, but it's likely the overall mass regroups and re-assimilates these doubtful.
5.- It really makes no diference. Getting into an open debate with a creationist is exactly what they want because that gives their stand a respectability in wouldn't have otherwise. I am what some call a "weak atheist", it means I don't actively deny the existance of god or gods, but I dobt it (for a religious person, it makes no difference, of course) and ultimately, the existence of god ot the truthness in evolutions doesn't reside in who wins and individual debate.

Now, if you already committed or really want to do it anf you feel you are up to the task, or just you had enough of their religious BS, then go ahead. At least get it of your chest. You can't let negative emotions get the best of you or you'll be just like them. My advice is that you prepare yourself in basic philosophy and logic construction besides evolution.

- The Jaguar

1) You are absolutely right, but I am making a list for myself of arguments creationists frequently use...still have a long way to go though!
2) I too have some experience with this, I think I have done about 20 ranging from 20 to 300 people....that's not the problem.
3) Probably true..
4) probably true as well...
5) It's not my intention to turn it in into a religion vs. evolution debate....I don't want to create or encourage the ongoing false dichotomy. I don't want to talk about the Bible or philosophy...just let them know what the Theory of Evolution actually is. They all say they know what it is but no one can give a simple definition or explanation. They use Ray Comfort tactics which are pretty easily refutable, straw-men's etc..
I guess I'm just fooling myself now and you are probably right.....they will spout Bible verses at me and use some philosophy to try and make a point.
But.....It's good practice, and I know most of them are science illiterates....I'll just see when the time comes.

Sorry, that got a bit long winded. Normally I would go back and cut out the irrelevancies, but I'm in a hurry at the moment.

they haven't forgotten about me and ask me frequently how I would feel about a return to that church.

Sounds like they care.

The last guy told me he would become an selfish prick if he would reject God and therefore his morality came from scripture.....he kinda scared me

Give up on him too.

My advice: don't do it. There are a number of reasons not to, from a hostile viewership, to the problem that this preacher is good at rhetoric because he does it once a week... But I personally often refuse to debate *any* scientific topic in person, because it is imposisble to cite sources: in person there is no evidence (unless you come with a large folder, but even then it could be fabricated), there are only claims to evidence, and whoever claims harderer or claims it louderer, "wins". I wanted to talk to an ID proponent who is in entomology, just as a friendly discussion (friend of a friend), and he *refused* to do it through email essentially accusing me of wanting to flame him (or, more precisely, "I find that people are more likely to be unnecessarily hostile through non-personal communication"), and I refused to meet in person because of the lack of evidence and sources (and because I had good reason to suspect he was good at emotional manipulation games), so that ended that.

Sorry for that also being unpolished and rambly... Anyway, the point is: you probably shouldn't do it.

Long-winded? Unpolished? Rambly? Not at all....I like a good read!
About given the guy up, that's exactly what Matt Dillahunty told me! This man can't be, pun intended, SAVED!

Sounds like they care.
Yeah, you would think that.....but the church has been in a downward spiral for years now. The average age of attendants in 60+. I think I used a hyperbole when I said "a couple hundred"......it's more like 150 on a good day and 30 on a bad day.

You know, during this topic I changed my mind on some occasions.....I never stood still at the fact that most of the people attending are 60+ and they would not give a rats ass about evolution....talking about this stuff really helps.

 

[Hwon]

I would avoid a public debate style forum. The concepts and assertions within apologetics are easily argued, articulated, and romanticized because they are intellectually vacuous. Inversely, science and reason cannot be easily explained as you will most likely have to condense decades if not centuries of scientific advancement into something understandable by an uninformed audience.

It's the simplistic affirmation shrouded in vagueness vs the multifarious explanation supported by a vast body of knowledge. One is easy to understand and they like the conclusion and the other is more difficult to comprehend and is viewed by them as being an unacceptable reality.

 

[lrkun]

What's important is that you, as a man, decided to pursue your course of action, which in your own scrutiny is correct.

I wish you luck. (not that luck exists, mind you, but that I hope it goes well)

 

[StealthBadger]

Isn't this in the same family as the Chewbacca Defense?

 

[lrkun]

Isn't this in the same family as the Chewbacca Defense?

Chewbacca Defense

The Chewbacca defense is a fictional legal strategy used in episode 27 of South Park, "Chef Aid", which premiered on October 7, 1998, as the fourteenth episode of the second season. The aim of the argument is to deliberately confuse the jury by making use of the fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi or red herring: It starts citing the fact that Chewbacca lives on Endor to unwind a series of nonsense conclusions. The concept satirized attorney Johnnie Cochran's closing argument defending O. J. Simpson in his murder trial. The Associated Press noted it as an example of Cochran's position in popular culture. The concept has become a minor internet phenomenon, used frequently as a running gag on satirical sites and in forums as a form of rhetoric.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense