Debating Theists for Dummies ??

[TimB]

Hello,

In general, I'm crap in an argument / debate on most topics (except the benefits of homebrew). Always forget good points to make or questions to ask or responses to questions until after the event

So, in the interests of supporting my developing hobby of winding people up about religion (well not really, I just like to ask questions it's not my fault if the other person gets wound up ), I want to improve my atheistic debating skills he he he.

So, does anyone know of a good book to assist my training!!! (I get more time on the bus to / from work than I spend on line)

[SchizoDeluxe]

I think knowledge and practice is the key, seems like the really good debaters out there, or even the best speakers, are good because they know exactly what they are talking about and have practiced those routines over and over again. Probably helps to be confident in speaking to large groups of people as well lol. That's one of the reasons I love Carlin and Hitchens so much, they didn't get that good over night, it took time. That's just my opinion on it anyway, I'm no great speaker myself, which is why I like these forums because it gives you time to think out what you have to say.

[youngmoigle]

Short Answer:
The Atheist Debater's Handbook (B. C. Johnson) Prometheus Press



Long Answer:

Rule 1: Don't let the believer change the subject. Almost invariably, when asked to prove that god exists, the believer will say something like, "I suppose you believe in evolution..." and before you know it, instead of him defending god, you are trying to defend the Theory of Evolution.

I always point out that I simply do not understand evolution. It may be right or it may be wrong, but I really don't know (I'm a layman, not a scientist)...so now we both agree that evolution is a bit suss, and the ball is back in the believer's court - he must prove that god exists...

You will find more on this subject (The Burden Of Proof) in a short article I wrote for Freethoughtpedia.
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/The_Burden_of_Proof



There are dozens of dishonest debating tricks and the believers use all of them, so it will pay you to learn how to recognise them. It will be handy because as soon as you recognise the "trick" you need only point out how the trick works and the believer will be forced back into line. This site has all the details:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/



At this site you will find a list of hundreds of bible contradictions.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

I've been around for a few years, so I've had time to memorize quite a few of them. I don't remember chapter and verse, but whenever a believer quotes the bible at me, I usually have a vague idea about where to find the contradictory text. If necessary, I will search for the key words in a Concordance and usually locate the text in less than a minute.

You will find Strong's online Concordance here:
http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

I don't bother too much with contradictions like Jehoiakin becoming king at age 8 (2 Chron 36:9) or age 18 (2 Kings 24:8) because that discrepancy is easily explained as a scribal error. I try to remember the more unusual things. For example, in Isaiah 2:4 there is a famous line that says, "they shall beat their swords into plowshares," and believers will often use it to "prove" that god is a peaceful character. That's when I remind them of Joel 3:10 where the very same god tells his people to prepare for war and "beat their plowshares into swords."



There are two other books that I have used to good effect in debates with Christians:

Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (John Haley)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Gleason Archer)

Both authors have come up with multiple explanations for many of the well-known bible contradictions, but, more often than not, their explanations are sillier than the original bible texts. If you read these books, you will have a fair idea of how the believer will try to overturn your arguments even before he opens his mouth (forewarned is forearmed).


Bear in mind that you don't have to remember fine details. In the hurly burly of debate, there is not a lot of checking going on, so you don't always have to be too precise - just make sure that you can back up your statements if asked to do so (That's when a Concordance comes in handy - your opponent can hardly argue when you are using the Holy Scriptures to make your point).

[Godless Ray]

Tim,

I have exactly what you require. Message me privately with an addy and I will be most happy to loan you some stuff.


Godless Ray

[TimB]

Thanks everyone for the info - let the training begin. Mmm now I just need more spare time

Mouth guard in
Kid gloves on
Phone book down the back of the pants to stop those imaginary bolts of lightning being hurled by the imaginary big guy in the sky

Off we go ....

[atheist_angel]

Boy, I need practice, too. Do any of them ever listen and switch sides?

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Originally Posted by atheist_angel

Boy, I need practice, too. Do any of them ever listen and switch sides?

I was reading Hitchens in the lunch room last week. It spurred comment from a guy I occasionally play guitar with. He'd never given it much thought but he had a strong feeling that there was something more to the world than just what we see.
We discussed the burden of proof and the moral compass idea. He seemed determined that religion was a force for good in the world but he asked for some recommended reading. Another workmate gave him "The God Delusion" THUNK!
He mightn't like it or take it on but at least he's giving it a look.
WLB

[wearestardust]

Originally Posted by Worldslaziestbusker

He seemed determined that religion was a force for good in the world but he asked for some recommended reading. Another workmate gave him "The God Delusion" THUNK!

I'd say Hitchens is the better antidote for the idea that religion is good for humanity. Dawkins is more on the religion is irrational side. And Dorothy Rowe's book "What should i believe? Why Our Beliefs About the Nature of Death and the Purpose of Life Dominate Our Lives" is a good antidote to the idea that religion is good for us as individuals.

Rowe, as an aside, makes a suggestion that I am sympathetic two that by focusing on rational arguments Dawkins and Hitchens are missing the point as to why people are religious and hence their books are less effective to that extent. Rowe is a psychologist specialising in depression, and that's the approach she takes.

[Fearless]

Originally Posted by youngmoigle

At this site you will find a list of hundreds of bible contradictions.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

I've been around for a few years, so I've had time to memorize quite a few of them. I don't remember chapter and verse, but whenever a believer quotes the bible at me, I usually have a vague idea about where to find the contradictory text. If necessary, I will search for the key words in a Concordance and usually locate the text in less than a minute.

I have been reading through many of these (thanks for the link) but nearly every listed contradiction is met with a christian response, usually from the same site and always ends in 'There is no contradiction'.

In every case these responses are a play on words suggesting that the nasty Atheist does not understand the context. I have no doubt that no matter what flaw you expose in the big old book of lies, there will be some form of mincing or passage swapping going on. I sense it is a pointless battle, they just wont accept contradiction. No matter which side of the fence you sit on will determine your judgement. Like two grumpy old men spraying water on each other from one side to the other.

I am not putting Atheists efforts down but I tend to see futility wherever I look when attempting to do battle with that damn book.

I think that understanding the point of Atheism and having a basic understanding of both sides is relevant if you are even going to attempt to debate against a theist, otherwise support organisations and help to promote change in our 'society' in your own way.

All my reading of religious works leads to frustration and sometimes anger and I am not prepared to sink my spare time into reading the bullshit in full, so my time would be better spent looking for other means to slow down the big Pacman of xtianity etc.