Ceteloguing the Tricks Theists Play

[Drich]

I think it's important to codify and catalogue the mind games theists play so we know what we are dealing with when we see them. This list of five is hardly exhaustive, so feel free to add things you have noticed.

1. They try to put the burden of proof on the non-believer.
   

Ah, no. The 'burden of Proof' is on God. However it is on the non-believer to do what God says to obtain the 'proof' He offers.

They never lie. They simply say whatever they think is necessary to get their point across with no regard for whether what they are saying is true or not.  If it will convince someone to accept their religion, god is powerful enough to make it true.
[/color

[color=#333333]They are ambulance chasers, looking for weaknesses and addictions to which they claim that god has the answer.

They present statements as if they were facts, then when we prove them wrong, they switch gears
]

I would say the same about atheists, but rather than 'god' in your truth statement substitute 'science.'

When we point to something in the Bible that is obviously incorrect or of questionable morality, they play the bad hermeneutics card.

I've never done that. I simply point to how the word 'morality' suits whatever society wants. Which in most cases is designed to exclude behavior God has sanctioned, but hypocritically ignores similar accepted behavior in society.

Edited by Pandæmonium - Sorry, don't ever normally edit the format of a member's post but that font colour was just not going to fly.

[LastPoet]

Oh, yey, Drich is back!

[KevinM1]

# whatever - they, perhaps intentionally, misrepresent the opposing argument, usually by putting inaccurate and/or never uttered words/thoughts into other people's mouths in order to give that strawman a savage beating.

[PhilliptheTeenageAtheist]

And what is this proof of which you speak, Drich?

[Longhorn]

Oh I'll bite. I'm sure it's going to end great

Ah, no. The 'burden of Proof' is on God. However it is on the non-believer to do what God says to obtain the 'proof' He offers.

Nuuupe. It's an interesting idea-putting the burden of proof on god himself-but within the constraints of logic, the person making the positive claim is the one with the burden of proof. It's just how it works.

OTOH we have theits saying that you need to seek god to find evidence for him-as he 'reveals he truth' to you-and when you mention you have sought it, you are just told you didn't seek hard enough.

I've never done that. I simply point to how the word 'morality' suits whatever society wants. Which in most cases is designed to exclude behavior God has sanctioned, but hypocritically ignores similar accepted behavior in society.

The word 'morality' has little to no meaning at all. It tries to describe a bunch of vague ideas, but on its own has no substance. I would argue that moral codes within societies are not so much 'designed' and rather that they evolve on their own over time....isn't it ironic that we have this created/evolved argument again?

I would say the same about atheists, but rather than 'god' in your truth statement substitute 'science.'

This 'science is same as faith' thing is so tired and bullshit....

I like the way Tim Minhin put it:

[robvalue]

10. They claim that they are "persecuted", when in fact they are the ones persecuting us (at least in America).

This is a big one!

Christians think they are being persecuted when the unfair advantages they have enjoyed for ages get finally removed to level the playing field. Some christians find just disagreeing with them to be persecution.

[Faith No More]

You'll learn quickly that smashing your head against a wall is more productive than engaging Drich, especially on morality.

Theists are quite fond of arguments from ignorance.

They also enjoy a good character assassination, but it's not like atheists aren't guilty of that one, either.

[Dystopia]

One trick - Assuming belief is the standard and asking the non-believer to justify his absence of belief. This is something many theists do simply because they are not used to rationally debate their beliefs so they truly think believing is normal and that not believing is a rarity.

Another - Asking where the universe came from (obvious one) or what purpose is there in life

Finally - Telling atheists that without god everything is justified because there are no absolute moral principles.

And - Saying that there were evil atheists like Pol Pot and Mao. Ok, no one denies that, but people are not held accountable for other people's actions just because they share something in common - I don't blame Christians for the actions of Rodrigo Bórgia and other Human abominations.

This is a big one!

Christians think they are being persecuted when the unfair advantages they have enjoyed for ages get finally removed to level the playing field. Some christians find just disagreeing with them to be persecution.

In some countries including Iran and Muslim ones you can find discrimination against Christians - This is not something that should be ignored because Christians, like Jews and other groups of people have been persecuted in the past. I don't think that is happening in Christian-majority countries, but you can find examples of Islamic groups burning Christian children or censoring of free speech for Christians in non-Christian countries or even "socialist" ones

[Jenny A]

One trick - Assuming belief is the standard and asking the non-believer to justify his absence of belief. This is something many theists do simply because they are not used to rationally debate their beliefs so they truly think believing is normal and that not believing is a rarity.

Another - Asking where the universe came from (obvious one) or what purpose is there in life

Finally - Telling atheists that without god everything is justified because there are no absolute moral principles.

This is related to your two:

They argue that god must exist because they feel so much better thinking that he:

a) creates meaning (just what the meaning is isn't quite so clear;

b) will make them live forever;

c) will dispense ultimate justice;

d) is watching their back.

If you don't believe in god it must because you don't want a, b, c, and d.  You much rather lie, steal, kill, fornicate, etc. than have any of those things.  It's like saying there must be ESP because it would be wicked cool.  And if you don't believe in ESP it must because you are afraid of people reading your mind.

[Crossless2.0]

I've encountered more than a few Christians who will dwell on the ghastlier details of scourging/crucifixion to instill a sense of guilt in a skeptic:'How can you be so hard-hearted? Can't you see how much He loves you to have endured such agony on your behalf?'

They can fuck right off with their ghoulish manipulation.