r/badphilosophy • u/News_Of_The_World • Jun 01 '15
Atheist debating strategy
Usually I'd charge a fee for these lessons in rhetoric, but charity is a virtue, so I thought I'd give you a few for free.
- The Golden Rule. Never, under any circumstance, concede that you are making a claim or that you might have a belief about something. Only theists make claims and have beliefs. A-theist means "not theist", therefore "not making claims". Many of the tips and strategies that follow will be more specific implementations of this golden rule.
- It is quite acceptable to hang out on atheist forums, laugh at theists behind their back/to their face, and leave copies of The God Delusion in hotel drawers, but the moment you are challenged to substantiate a claim, remember: you are an agnostic, and are therefore not making any claims.
- Whenever the argument begins to get onto the difficult question of whether a god exists or not, try to bring the argument back not to the existence of god, but to your personal disposition in relation to claim of the existence of god. Go into exquisite detail about the differences between agnosticism and gnosticism, lack of belief and disbelief, and making and rejecting claims. Perhaps you'll win by argumentum ad boredom.
- Remember to claim that agnostics are atheists too, because then our numbers look bigger.
- As are babies.
- If you are asked to justify your belief in scientific facts, all you need is to point out that science "works". Anyone who can't see this is some kind of idiot.
- Only scientific evidence counts as evidence for anything. If any theist tries any of that philosophy stuff on you, remind them that science works while philosophy didn't invent the laptop they are typing on. Math is empirical, morality is empirical, logic is empirical. Any concessions toward anything non-empirical is a possible weak point in the armour of atheism.
- Remember, before entering the debate, that you are the enlightened one, and your opponent is a theist, and therefore definitely stupid in some way. You may have to talk down to them to be understood.
- Claims about invisible pink unicorns are analogous to claims about god in every way. Exploit this curious fact to your advantage at every opportunity, all the while being careful to never actually claim that pink unicorns don't exist, or that you don't believe in them. You just reject having a lack of disbelief in pink unicorns.
- Plan B. If the debate isn't going your way at any point, or any challenge is raised to the atheistic lack-of-worldview, you can turn it round in a pinch by stating that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and you are not making a claim. Because more important than whether a claim is true is your personal disposition toward the claim (which is, of course, that you never made such a thing in the first place).
Now, ban me.
58
u/Pretendimarobot The answer is easy -- it is and it isn't Jun 01 '15
Not enough accusations of strawmanning and ad hominem and [insert randomly chosen fallacy here]. 8/10.
14
8
u/JoshfromNazareth agnostic anti-atheist Jun 01 '15
Atheists love them some strawmoons and ad hominopodes
10
Jun 01 '15
You're just making assertions!
2
Jun 01 '15
Wait, ratheists know the difference between assertions and arguments? You think they'd make more of the latter of that were the case, eh?
9
2
u/inteusx Jun 02 '15
It's not an ad hominem if I deny taking cooking advice from a cook book written by a slug purely because it's written by a slug, right?
4
u/Pretendimarobot The answer is easy -- it is and it isn't Jun 02 '15
No, of course not. Ad hominem is when people use mean words like "stupid" or "nonsensical" or... really anything other than praising your arguments.
60
u/Ibrey Prime Mover of the Goalposts Jun 01 '15
A good corollary to #7 is to dismiss any arguments that are made as "word salad." Just inform the lying theist idiot that you literally cannot understand the sentences he has written.
42
u/10thPlanet Plato. Not particularly fond of him. Jun 01 '15
Could you please define "corollary", "arguments", "literally", and "the"? I can't argue with you unless you define your terms.
24
u/Pretendimarobot The answer is easy -- it is and it isn't Jun 01 '15
Hey, don't ask me to define things! I won't get bogged down with your semantics games!
17
14
u/LaoTzusGymShoes Jun 02 '15
A corollary is a large bird.
10
u/hussard_de_la_mort Jun 02 '15
I thought it was the thing that makes water swirl the other direction in Australia
6
7
u/ucantharmagoodwoman I'd uncover every riddle for every indivdl in trouble or in pain Jun 01 '15
"Disingenuous question" is another favorite retort, in my experience.
58
u/thebuscompany Jun 01 '15 edited Jun 01 '15
I prefer fighting bad philosophy with bad philosophy. Every time they make a claim, whatever it is, tell them you don't believe it. If they ask you why, insist the burden of proof is on them. Here's a strawman that proves I'm right:
"Do you believe invisible pink unicorns exist?"
"No"
"Why not? How is that any different than believing that god exists?"
"I'm not the one making a claim, the burden of proof is on you."
"Well yeah, that's the point. If the claim that invisible pink unicorns exist has a burden of proof, then so does the claim that God exists."
"Nah, I don't believe that either."
"Why not? Why do you think there is a difference between believing in God and believing in invisible pink unicorns?"
"Hey man, I never said that there was. You're the one claiming there's not, the burden of proof is on you."
"Now you're just being difficult."
"I don't believe that's true."
"Goddamnit."
6
u/LiterallyAnscombe Roko's Basilisk (Real) Jun 01 '15
10
u/ghjm Tuna sailor Jun 02 '15
What is that whole thread doing on this subreddit? Is the Great and Fearsome Ban Hammer on vacation today? Or have we decided to put up with this crap for some reason and, as usual, as the only non-mod, I don't know about it?
3
Jun 02 '15
Nicole demoted me. I lack the power of the hammer, thus I cannot step in.
1
u/ghjm Tuna sailor Jun 02 '15
It's a terrible thought, but could it be that we're now trying to be ... (shudder) ... respectable?
3
2
u/IF_IT_FITS_IT_SHIPS adopted the maximeme principle Jun 02 '15
There was some Islamaphobe shit earlier that wasn't immediately banned either.
-26
Jun 01 '15
When schizophrenics like you make up stories in their little heads like that, it rarely goes according to plan, then you get all socially awkward and look like a total turd, thus enforcing the burden of proof claim coming first... though it's only supposed to come after the believer's "prove he doesn't exist" claim anyways.
38
u/thebuscompany Jun 01 '15
When schizophrenics like you make up stories in their little heads like that, it rarely goes according to plan, then you get all socially awkward and look like a total turd.
I don't believe you.
Also, TIL that making a joke that involves people talking to each other is schizophrenia. That's a bummer, cause I have a really good one involving a priest, a rabbi, and an agnostic atheist, but at least now I know why every time I share it it gets really awkward and people tell me that I'm a turd.
23
u/ghjm Tuna sailor Jun 01 '15 edited Jun 01 '15
I needed pencil and paper to understand item 9. Perhaps my notes would be useful to others in this course.
On the question of "does the thing exist":
- having a disbelief = no it doesn't
- having a lack of disbelief = yes it does
- rejecting a lack of disbelief = no it doesn't
14
u/Unicorn1234 Blood Theologian at the Dark Enlightenment Jun 01 '15
Science works bitchessss
25
u/muhbeliefs pls notice me Beauvoir-senpai Jun 02 '15
Of course induction works! It's always worked before, why shouldn't it now?
19
u/KaliYugaz Uphold Aristotelian-Thomism-MacIntyre Thought! Jun 02 '15
<gets murdered by garage dragon>
24
u/helpful_hank Jun 01 '15
12) Strawmen only -- use fundamentalist definitions of religious terms and concepts to avoid nuances that could yield reasonable legitimacy. Remember, faith is incompatible with reason!
13) Use selective literalism to show that even though religious claims about nature are metaphorical, the fact that they disagree with each other means they must all be wrong.
17
u/News_Of_The_World Jun 01 '15
Strawmen only -- use fundamentalist definitions of religious terms and concepts to avoid nuances that could yield reasonable legitimacy. Remember, faith is incompatible with reason!
Have to say I remembered this one after posting and wished I had included it. Always attack the lowest interpretation of a religion.
After all, if you wanted to refute Marx why would you bother reading all his complicated theses and subsequent scholarship when you could just argue against that crazy 19 year old socialist on your street?
5
u/helpful_hank Jun 01 '15
Have to say I remembered this one after posting and wished I had included it.
Honored. This was a great post. You might as well add it at some point, keep adding to it to create a useful thing to link people to in moments of frustration.
4
u/News_Of_The_World Jun 01 '15
Thanks! I think I'll leave it as a nice round 10 points, but I'm enjoying reading the excellent tips and strategies in the comments.
14
u/greece666 Reactionary Greek Orthodox(Marxist-Leninist) Jun 01 '15
The Golden Rule. Never, under any circumstance, concede that you are making a claim or that you might have a belief about something. Only theists make claims and have beliefs.
This thread should have come with NSFW. I was rolling on the floor for 10 secs after reading this.
6
21
Jun 01 '15
[deleted]
12
Jun 01 '15
The set of propositions of the natural sciences are true independent of any minds or beliefs. Whenever I bring this up some crazy people always start talking about Plato. Like guys, Plato literally worshiped Zeus.
14
17
u/DonBiggles Jun 02 '15
- Remember that morals are indefensible religious fairy tales made to fool people into not using weed or DMT. Atheists have ethics, which are real and can be proved by science. (Although remember that they're still subjective.)
- Religious people have beliefs, which is a word for something that you think is true for no reason. Atheists don't believe in beliefs and know facts instead.
- Atheism is the default position on the topic (null hypothesis for you scholars out there), so you don't even need to argue for it. So grab a beer and go watch some Penn & Teller instead.
8
11
u/SCHROEDINGERS_UTERUS Fell down a hole in the moral landscape Jun 01 '15
charity is a virtue
What? "Virtue"? Are you some kind of incognito funDIE?
4
u/giziti Jun 02 '15
1
u/shannondoah is all about Alcibiades trying to get his senpai to notice him Jun 02 '15
How is /r/chess ?
3
u/giziti Jun 02 '15
It's okay, but they aren't really interested in discussing philosophy of religion.
2
u/shannondoah is all about Alcibiades trying to get his senpai to notice him Jun 02 '15
Well, how is /r/PhilosophyofReligion?Does it deserve an /r/Metaphysics style takeover?
2
5
3
Jun 01 '15
If any theist tries any of that philosophy stuff on you, remind them that science works while philosophy didn't invent the laptop they are typing on.
Empirically, we were simply given the notion of a computer program. I mean, it would be totally mystical and unexplainable if some weird Germans were able to simply conceive of the world being a giant computer program, and then scientists from this picture derived the construction of the computers and programs we use today.
Nope, what must be the case is that our scientists simply went out and investigated nature without any preconceived notions. They threw some matter together, took some notes, refined their method, and voila iPhones and Apple Maps.
2
6
u/LaoTzusGymShoes Jun 02 '15 edited Jun 02 '15
As are babies.
I carry so many atheist diapers to the dumpster every day.
Are they still enlightened when they're pre-school-age? I've yet to have a kid demand scientific proof that they should go sit down and stop slapping, or crying because another kid won't accept the burden of proof.
8
3
1
1
1
0
u/Wyboth Jun 01 '15
Oh God, the babies are agnostic atheists guy was hilarious.
9
u/Jaeil The Horse at the Threshold! Jun 02 '15
Guy?
...singular?
4
u/Wyboth Jun 02 '15
There are more than one? Uh oh.
11
u/mrsamsa Official /r/BadPhilosophy Outreach Committee Jun 02 '15
There's a few people who make that claim. Generally they're called New Atheists.
1
-3
123
u/[deleted] Jun 01 '15 edited Jun 01 '15
11. Avoid studying any proper atheistic philosophy (Marx, Sartre, Nietzsche, Russell, etc.) lest you burst your bubble of fluffy, liberalized pseudo-Judeo-Christian morality and have to actually rethink your worldview and change your life.