How to beat a presupp at their own game

[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.