How to beat a presupp at their own game

[Angrboda]

Unfortunately for you, your timing is not great. AF used to be a hotbed of theological debate, but a year or so back, the theists abandoned ship en masse. It's something of a ghost town, now.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Darth has never beaten a single atheist. His tactics are childish and dull.

[Superjock]

Darth has never beaten a single atheist. His tactics are childish and dull.

From my perspective it just seems like he does because I don't know any better. In fact I just listened an hour ago to another debate between an atheist and a Christian and what it boils down to .... is that the atheist doesn't have any absolute foundation for the intelligibility of facts, which is the primary objection.

He was rightfully saying that he doesn't have ultimate or absolute knowledge about anything, nor does he need it - so naturally the Christian says that facts that don't have any ultimate context are arbitrary - you could be a brain in a vat or a solipsist and your worldview wouldn't be able to rule out that possibility so basically the debate/discussion was focusing on that part of the argument. They were saying the laws of physics could change, you don't know that they won't, you don't know anything ultimately, so "facts" are arbitrary.

The Christians were saying but they DO have ultimate context for facts that undergirds reality which is God - because the bible and God revealed it etc etc. He sustains reality. This part of the theist argument was not attacked - I think ground could have been made if he had tried to attack that line of reasoning - it just seemed like they were begging the question.

But usually in these debates, albeit against atheists who may not be prepared, it seems like they are being picked apart and the guy. I think I wouldn't have fared any better, and probably worse.

[Belacqua]

He kept insisting that because I don't KNOW everything about gravity that there is nothing in my system that would prevent gravity from operating differently tomorrow. Just because gravity has observable patterns today or yesterday doesn't mean it will be consistent tomorrow or the next, so in my worldview anything can change. What regulates gravity or the laws of physics? What is the absolute etc - so I naturally said that I don't know.

So far, this is all correct, I think.

These are things we take for granted -- that gravity works as it does and not another way, that it will remain consistent, etc. 

Some people say that for these things to be true, there has to be a ground of being or logos which sustains things in being. This is what they call God. 

It takes a lot of argument to get from there to the God of the Bible. 

I seriously need to learn how to deconstruct these theist arguments because I am so weak right now - he then went to Modus Pollens, which I've never even heard of. 

I think it's "modus tollens," with a t. ("Modus Pollens" sounds as if it has to do with hay fever.) It's one of those logical structures that comes up a lot in metaphysical arguments. It would make sense to work on it a little, if you really want to keep talking with these guys.

Clearly, these guys have been at this a while. They have heard every single argument you can throw at them, and they have their replies ready. They may be good replies or bad ones, but they're ready. They have a self-consistent system -- which is not to say it's a good one, only that it holds together for them and the suggestions you're getting on this forum for arguments you can use against them will have no effect. 

I think the trouble is that both sides approach it as a fight. You are sure they are wrong already, and you want to fight them. A lot of their opponents begin with the idea that they are stupid, and their arguments can be defeated with something obvious. And of course they are completely sure they're right. It means that neither side really listens. Good faith debate requires more. 

It may not be possible on that particular forum, with Darth Whatsit, but I think that learning a lot more about theology and metaphysics in a non-fight environment would make sense at this point. They start with a number of reasonable assertions and extrapolate those to things that are maybe not justified. We need to separate the good from the bad, and be clear about the arguments they use. But that's hard if everybody's just hating each other. 

You can't learn theology or metaphysics on this site, because people will say anything they want about religion as long as it's negative. Overall there's no commitment to accuracy.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I'm aware of what he argues and it's rubbish. I have never seen him win a single debate with that tactic. But he keeps doing it over and over thinking he's defeating the atheists. It's freaking hilarious.

[Mister Agenda]

Even if this is just a passing phase, I think having a firm grasp of your own position is always a good thing (as well as learning about opposing positions) hence all the questions. I'm a newbie navigating these arguments so any help/advice would be greatly appreciated. I guess I'll probably need to learn logical fallacies again.

A site that might suit you is Quora. It's a question and answer site, and the algorithms will bring more questions and answers regarding atheism, theism, and the Bible if you show an interest. A lot of theists shit-post stupid atheist questions; but the answers can still be instructive. I recommend you follow Dick Harfield, he's a Bible expert well-versed in modern biblical scholarship and provides very informative answers to questions on that topic.

---

Darth has never beaten a single atheist. His tactics are childish and dull.

From my perspective it just seems like he does because I don't know any better. In fact I just listened an hour ago to another debate between an atheist and a Christian and what it boils down to .... is that the atheist doesn't have any absolute foundation for the intelligibility of facts, which is the primary objection.

He was rightfully saying that he doesn't have ultimate or absolute knowledge about anything, nor does he need it - so naturally the Christian says that facts that don't have any ultimate context are arbitrary - you could be a brain in a vat or a solipsist and your worldview wouldn't be able to rule out that possibility so basically the debate/discussion was focusing on that part of the argument. They were saying the laws of physics could change, you don't know that they won't, you don't know anything ultimately, so "facts" are arbitrary.

The Christians were saying but they DO have ultimate context for facts that undergirds reality which is God - because the bible and God revealed it etc etc. He sustains reality. This part of the theist argument was not attacked - I think ground could have been made if he had tried to attack that line of reasoning - it just seemed like they were begging the question.

But usually in these debates, albeit against atheists who may not be prepared, it seems like they are being picked apart and the guy. I think I wouldn't have fared any better, and probably worse.

Just say that your worldview is that reality is real if not completely accessible; and you'll have just as much basis for claiming you're not a brain in a jar as they do.

[Superjock]

One of the "intelligent" Christians asked an atheist to prove empirically the last 10 seconds occurred in the past as the atheist said he wanted empirical evidence for the existence of God. The atheist said "well take a stop watch out and count to 10", but that's not showing that 10 seconds occurred in the past etc.

Theists will use these tactics and it's frustrating to listen to.

---

Let me ask you guys - if you debated a Christian, what kind of evidence or evidentiary standard would you use to ask them to support the existence of their God? Empiricism?

[The Grand Nudger]

Pretty much a fools errand, and especially so in the case of this god that the believers are persuasively arguing out of existence a priori.

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah, the problem seems to be that you should not start a conversation with a religious person about religion, but only defend yourself when they start working on you.

That's why I don't go on Hare Krishna or Christian forums.

[The Architect Of Fate]

One of the "intelligent" Christians asked an atheist to prove empirically the last 10 seconds occurred in the past as the atheist said he wanted empirical evidence for the existence of God.  The atheist said "well take a stopwatch out and count to 10", but that's not showing that 10 seconds occurred in the past etc.

Theists will use these tactics and it's frustrating to listen to.

So they just avoided the question and challenged the atheist to prove something unrelated. Oh and it doesn't matter if ten seconds occurred in the past we can measure them in the present. Can they show god in the present?