RE: Breeds of Apologists (and how to debate them)
January 8, 2013 at 1:56 am
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2013 at 2:10 am by DeistPaladin.)
The Philoso-Babbler
Demeanor: The Philoso-babbler is similar to the Pompous Apologist but without the education or intellect needed to pull off the pseudo-professorial role. Like his/her Pompous kin, there's a heavy reliance on philosophy but more on the canned (and repeatedly debunked) arguments like the Ontological Argument.
Possible Nature: This type heard the Presuppositional Argument and thought it was a slam dunk. They seem to think "God-(verb)-It" is a good explanation for anything.
Favorite Fallacies: "Bare Assertion", "Circular Reasoning", "Non Sequitur", and "Special Pleading"
Suggested Strategy: Really? You want to waste your time? This bozo is self-pwning. However, he does make for good practice for the beginner skeptic as they sharpen their debate skills.
The Fundy Fucktard
Demeanor: This breed is the mirror opposite of the "Liberal" apologist. They know what the Bible says and surprisingly are just fine with it. They have no need to reconcile science with their faith, as "evilution" is a great conspiracy and the world is really 6-10 thousand years old.
Possible Nature: Nothing hidden about this one. All the cards are on the table and anyone who's read the Bible will find them as predictable as the next sunrise. In a way, their consistency is refreshing, especially if you've just gone a few rounds with a Liberal apologist.
Favorite Fallacies: "Appeal to Fear"
Suggested Strategy: There's little hope for this one but they can be useful as a case study on what happens to your brain if you actually believe this stuff.
EDIT TO ADD: Just for fun, if you are able, put them in a room with a Liberal apologist and watch the sparks fly.
Demeanor: The Philoso-babbler is similar to the Pompous Apologist but without the education or intellect needed to pull off the pseudo-professorial role. Like his/her Pompous kin, there's a heavy reliance on philosophy but more on the canned (and repeatedly debunked) arguments like the Ontological Argument.
Possible Nature: This type heard the Presuppositional Argument and thought it was a slam dunk. They seem to think "God-(verb)-It" is a good explanation for anything.
Favorite Fallacies: "Bare Assertion", "Circular Reasoning", "Non Sequitur", and "Special Pleading"
Suggested Strategy: Really? You want to waste your time? This bozo is self-pwning. However, he does make for good practice for the beginner skeptic as they sharpen their debate skills.
The Fundy Fucktard
Demeanor: This breed is the mirror opposite of the "Liberal" apologist. They know what the Bible says and surprisingly are just fine with it. They have no need to reconcile science with their faith, as "evilution" is a great conspiracy and the world is really 6-10 thousand years old.
Possible Nature: Nothing hidden about this one. All the cards are on the table and anyone who's read the Bible will find them as predictable as the next sunrise. In a way, their consistency is refreshing, especially if you've just gone a few rounds with a Liberal apologist.
Favorite Fallacies: "Appeal to Fear"
Suggested Strategy: There's little hope for this one but they can be useful as a case study on what happens to your brain if you actually believe this stuff.
EDIT TO ADD: Just for fun, if you are able, put them in a room with a Liberal apologist and watch the sparks fly.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
