(September 29, 2015 at 12:21 am)Salacious B. Crumb Wrote: Well, I hope you have a good time, but if most of them are theists then, be prepared for presuppositions and fallacies. If lkingpinl shows up, sit next to him.
This is actually a good point. In the debate, since you're using Robert's Rules of Order, it may do well to learn what the common fallacies are (and how to spot presuppositions), then watch for those presuppositions and fallacies, and continually point them out. Be as stubborn and pedantic as you like on this angle, since so many of the common arguments I've heard Christians put forward in arguments are presuppositionalist.
For example, the common argument seen here is "We cannot be moral without a Moral Lawgiver" presupposes that there is no known mechanism for morality among social animals (there is, in fact) and that there exists such a thing as a universally-accepted Moral Lawgiver (you would, in this case, raise a Point of Information and ask the speaker to clarify how they can operate from that premise, since a ML is not established as factual, and ask them to specify why any one ML should be followed or believed as moral in the face of competing claims from other).
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
