(April 16, 2015 at 8:55 pm)atheist critic Wrote:

(June 13, 2014 at 11:22 pm)topher Wrote: So, I've recently been planning a basic strategy to use when debating with theists. There will never be a "one-size fits all" approach, obviously, but I know a lot of people have their own strategies that can engage any average believer. So, I'll run through my strategy, which consists of 3 questions, and I was hoping I could get some feedback from fellow atheists who may have heard good/terrible responses to these questions.

1. Does it matter to you whether or not your beliefs are true?

Basically, do you believe what you do because you think it's true? Or just because it feels good? Is there any amount of evidence that could ever change your mind? What if you knew for a FACT that it wasn't true, would you still cling to the belief out of the comfort it gives you?

2. Do you agree that truth is determined by evidence and observation of facts, and not through any other means?

Pretty basic, just simply; Do you understand how we come to understand something as truth? It's through evidence and evidence alone. We may be wrong about things sometimes, but science remains by far and away the single best method of coming to knowledge.

3. Do you understand that there is no evidence to support the claim that your beliefs are true?

If the first two questions went very quickly, then obviously this one is going to take the largest amount of time to discuss. But it's rewarding if you can trap them in their own mind games. Obviously, they can not answer these questions the way a logical person would. If they care about the truth, then they must acknowledge that they require evidence, not faith. And if they accept that there is no evidence to support their claims, then they can't even explain to themselves why they believe in God.

Any changes I should make before I try these out? How do you guys tend to argue with a believer?

I am lucky because I got to experience God through dreams, prophecies, loved ones communicating to me on the day they died when I had no way of knowing..stuff like this.

So my evidence is God answering my prayers, the experience through God, and other things.But the bottom line is I experienced something beyond the five senses through God.

Experience is something personal for the individual butwill never suffice for others to know there is a God.

Circular logic questions...how about logic canceling itself out? Logic stays in s box...if you want that forget chasing the experience. It's up to you but there is only one God.

This is a bunch of nothing.  Personal experiences aren't evidence because they aren't evident to others.  And your last comment is a poor attempt to appear, like, whoa, deep, man.  It's vapid nonsense.

Is your 3rd question not circular reasoning?

premise 1. You're wrong
conclusion... because I said so

Quick question: how can you differentiate between experiencing god, and something else causing you to experience exactly what you would expect god to be like, such as a hallucination?
Possible answers:

(1) I can't. But I think it's more likely the god of the whole universe, all the trillions of planets and galaxies, came to say hi than me going a bit freaky in the head.

(2) I can tell the difference, even though by definition the experiences are exactly the same. I'm not being honest with you, or myself, but I'd rather live in fairy land than reality.

(3) Don't take my god away from me!

(April 18, 2015 at 12:14 am)nicanica123 Wrote: Is your 3rd question not circular reasoning?

premise 1. You're wrong
conclusion... because I said so

"3. Do you understand that there is no evidence to support the claim that your beliefs are true?"


I'm inclined to agree with you, nicanica123.  Though I'm not sure the question is equivalent to claiming particular beliefs are wrong.  I'd say it just casts too wide of a net.


I believe I love my wife.  Not sure what I'm supposed to do with the lack of evidence to support that claim.  It is mostly just something I feel.  The only evidence I could possibly provide is personal and non-verifiable.


So I don't think that question will be useful in the author's stated purpose of arguing with theists.  Why should they abandon their feelings toward what they call God for the lack of evidence?  They won't and shouldn't.


Of course claims involving the observable world, such as God created it and us, are about more than our feelings and relationships.  Claims regarding consensual reality are either supportable or mere speculation.  Everyone is entitled to speculate.  They just shouldn't parade it around as a supportable proposition.

(April 18, 2015 at 12:14 am)nicanica123 Wrote: Is your 3rd question not circular reasoning?
premise 1. You're wrong
conclusion... because I said so

It seems his premise actually starts at question 3 and works its way to question 1.

Basically stating there is no evidence for your beliefs and truths must be based off of evidence; so how can you actually accept your beliefs as valid or truthful if you have nothing tangible to back them up?

The question is about as loaded as "Where did you bury the child's body?" or "Have you stopped cutting holes in your face?"

(June 14, 2014 at 7:07 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: (insert sophistic creationist gibberish)

Seeing you banned just made me smile from ear to ear.

(April 18, 2015 at 5:40 am)whateverist Wrote: Why should they abandon their feelings toward what they call God for the lack of evidence?  They won't and shouldn't.

I disagree. They won't but they should, for the same reasons children should, say, by about age nine, abandon their feelings toward the bogeyman they imagine is lurking behind the bedroom door, and begin to invest their concerns in matters related to the world that they and everyone else around them actually have to deal with.