1. Comment #113372 by Matt7895 on January 19, 2008 at 12:51 pm

This is especially true when arguing with creationists. I have seen many science advocates preparing lengthy, evidence and logic-based arguments and have all their work ignored in the response from the creationist, who usually recites Bible verses or uses the faith card.

Other Comments by Matt7895

2. Comment #113374 by Paula Kirby on January 19, 2008 at 12:59 pm

who usually recites Bible verses or uses the faith card.

Well, to be fair - that is all they've got to argue with!

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

3. Comment #113376 by LorienRyan on January 19, 2008 at 1:08 pm

God can suspend the laws of chess and make a pawn move like a queen... it's a miracle!

Other Comments by LorienRyan

4. Comment #113385 by Eventhorizon on January 19, 2008 at 1:23 pm

This is why Dawkins doesnt depate creationists. Also one doesnt want to - as Dawkins himself puts it so well - "give them the oxygen of credibility".
If anyone says to me that they are a creationist its the end of the conversation right there.
Or as Matt7895 put it, they play the faith card so talking themslves out of a rational conversation altogether.

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

5. Comment #113389 by babrock on January 19, 2008 at 1:29 pm

Having based our thinking on rationality we asume the same for others. This often gives them way to much credit and we can be slow in coming to the truth of the matter when unbelievable nonsense comes out their mouths.

Other Comments by babrock

6. Comment #113390 by Double Bass Atheist on January 19, 2008 at 1:35 pm

I recently posted on another thread about a debate last week with one of the many young earth creationists I work with. She said that she "does not believe in Neanderthal man." In my life I have had hundreds, perhaps thousands of debates with various creationists, but I've never heard that particular statement before! I tried to explain to her that this is obviously not a "belief". You can go to museums all over the world and view their bones, tools, etc. Her response was, "That's just your opinion."
My opinion??? Aaaaaagh!

Clearly some of these people are so deluded by their religion that logic and reason are just empty vessels.

I left my debate with the aforementioned YEC with the following comment:
"After all, why suffer from insanity? Become religious and enjoy every minute of it!"

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

7. Comment #113392 by HarryHUK on January 19, 2008 at 1:38 pm

I have a born again christian friend who,whenever we debate issues of faith,simply smiles at me and says "you really don't understand,do you",to which I reply "no"

Other Comments by HarryHUK

8. Comment #113398 by DavidJGrossman on January 19, 2008 at 1:48 pm

That looks like a legal move. Yellow shirt guy jumped three of green shirt guy's checkers in one move (legal) and ended up in his home row where he could legitimately ask to be "kinged".

Just saying ...

- Dave

Other Comments by DavidJGrossman

9. Comment #113421 by notsobad on January 19, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Th worst thing is that otherwise reasonable people turn into infantile ignoramuses when debating their faith.

Other Comments by notsobad

10. Comment #113424 by Ned Flanders on January 19, 2008 at 2:44 pm

It's a new version of the game, they call it "intelligent chess"

Other Comments by Ned Flanders

11. Comment #113429 by liddlefeesh on January 19, 2008 at 2:58 pm

"Well, those are YOUR interpetation of the rules. MY interpretation of the rules is different..."

reductio ad absurdium :(

Other Comments by liddlefeesh

12. Comment #113442 by athegan on January 19, 2008 at 3:12 pm

True...so true...nice allegory

Other Comments by athegan

13. Comment #113459 by uwaku on January 19, 2008 at 3:49 pm

"That looks like a legal move. Yellow shirt guy jumped three of green shirt guy's checkers in one move (legal) and ended up in his home row where he could legitimately ask to be "kinged"."

DavidJGrossman, I DO hope you're being sarcastic. You did notice they're playing chess, not checkers, right?

Other Comments by uwaku

14. Comment #113460 by pkruger on January 19, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Arguing with a believer is like playing chess.

..yes, and as I have said before many times--
Like playing chess on a basketball

Other Comments by pkruger

15. Comment #113474 by Satanburiedfossils on January 19, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Excerpt from "25 Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Christian":

"Without pointing to words, without relying on word associations, what can you tell me about God? If you can't tell me anything without refering back to word associations, then the word associations themselves—omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent—are meaningless since they also or composed of associations that cannot be proven and are nowhere in evidence. For example, what does it mean to say that God is omnipotent (all-powerful?) Is there really such a thing as omnipotence or does its very definition entail contradictions and paradoxes? This quote by Epicurus (341-270 BCE) clearly exemplifies the issue: "Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?"

It's almost like an elaborate con game is going on. The term 'God' is meaningless without the word associations, but the words used to make the associations are also meaningless since taken together they are inherently contrary, paradoxical, and still manage to beg the question. And isn't all doctrinal language just this way? You can't point to God, so you make word associations instead. You can't point to life-after-death, so you make word associations instead. You can't point to Satan, so you make word associations instead.

Without words, without making word associations, there would be no knowledge of the Soul or Heaven or Hell or Judgement Day or Eternal Life, etc. Even the notion of 'Sin' depends on word associations, for what is a 'sin' without the declaration of sin?"

http://www.control-z.com/pgs/why_no_longer.html

Other Comments by Satanburiedfossils

16. Comment #113479 by _J_ on January 19, 2008 at 5:25 pm

HarryHUK

I have a born again christian friend who,whenever we debate issues of faith,simply smiles at me and says "you really don't understand,do you",to which I reply "no"

So true.

Can I suggest adding: 'And neither do you. That's what worries me.'

I think I'd stop arguing with religious folks if they'd just admit that they really don't know. It's the pretending that they understand that buggers everything up.

Like our yellow-shirted 2D friend. If he'd just said 'How does a knight move again?' there'd be no depressingly true joke.

Other Comments by _J_

17. Comment #113481 by _J_ on January 19, 2008 at 5:34 pm

Satanburiedfossils

http://www.control-z.com/pgs/why_no_longer.html

Great link - but Jesu Christi, did that guy do a lot of work to realise that it don't make a jot o' sense.

Other Comments by _J_

18. Comment #113482 by babrock on January 19, 2008 at 5:38 pm

" depresingly cruel joke". That just reminded me of something that I was watching earlyer that is filed in the comedy section about suicide killers on the Daily Show w/ some French film director that was seriously not funny.

Other Comments by babrock

19. Comment #113503 by Jack Rawlinson on January 19, 2008 at 7:56 pm

And of course, one tactic to use in this situation is to beat them at the change-the-rules game. The next frame of this cartoon should be the first guy hip-throwing the second and screaming IPPON, BIATCH! :-)

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

20. Comment #113521 by Mal3 on January 19, 2008 at 10:14 pm

This reminds me of another chess related joke regarding debates with creationists I read once...

"Arguing evolution with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. They knock over all the pieces, crap on the board, and then fly back to their flock, loudly proclaiming victory.

Other Comments by Mal3

21. Comment #113523 by Big City on January 19, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Atheists are arrogant in thinking that the rules of chess are meant to be understood. Chess has its reasons.

Other Comments by Big City

22. Comment #113551 by daddydowse on January 20, 2008 at 2:24 am

Not to be a grumpy old bugger, but i've had this in the forum for days!

Other Comments by daddydowse

23. Comment #113552 by NakedCelt on January 20, 2008 at 2:26 am

I disagree. There are ways and ways of arguing with believers.

The trouble is not that believers are irredeemably stupid. I used to be one, and I don't think my enlightenment involved my actually growing any new brain matter. The trouble is this:

I'm sure we've all been in the situation where we're arguing with someone and we just know they're wrong, but we can't quite verbalize the reason why they're wrong. If you stump a believer in a head-on argument, they simply assume that they are in that precise situation, and hand-wave it away.

No. There is a way, and it goes like this.

1. Distasteful as it may be, start out playing by the believer's rules.

2. Confine yourself to gaining one point per argument.

Recently, I was in a car with a friend of mine, who's a very decent, soft-spoken old gentleman who happens to believe in Lemuria, Atlantis, and things like that. Well, he happened to mention pole shifts.

Now, I could have started talking astronomy and basic physics, but (a) I don't have the facts ready to hand and (b) he'd have figured I'd been taken in by "orthodox science", and things would have ended up much like the characters in the comic strip.

Instead, I said: "Well, there certainly hasn't been a pole shift in the last few thousand years, because the Great Pyramid had a shaft leading from the central chamber aimed exactly at the present celestial North Pole." (Something I'd heard on a documentary somewhere.)

And he accepted it immediately.

That's how it's done.

Other Comments by NakedCelt

24. Comment #113570 by irate_atheist on January 20, 2008 at 4:22 am

15. Comment #113474 by Satanburiedfossils -

It's almost like an elaborate con game is going on.

Knock off the first three words and you have, of course, identified the issue. Self-delusion, mutual-delusion, call it what you will. A crock of shit held up for worship by liars and hypocrites.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

25. Comment #113643 by rod-the-farmer on January 20, 2008 at 9:22 am

A very long time ago I took a girl out to see a movie, who turned out to be a real faith-head, possibly a LDS type, I don't recall. On the long drive back to her house we talked about the universe, among other things. At one point I said something like "a star like our sun" and she immediately interrupted to say that our sun was different from the stars. When pressed to clarify this, she could not, just that it was different. It was a SUN, and those were STARS. I knew at that point that this was the proverbial "3 dates in one". First, last and only date. Oh Be A Fine Girl Kiss Me was NOT appropriate.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

26. Comment #113645 by MaxD on January 20, 2008 at 9:25 am

Ippon! Hah. The hip-throw of reason? Tomoe nage of truth maybe? Tsurikomi ashi against obscurantism?
Sorry about the judo terminology here. Rawlinson inspired me.

Other Comments by MaxD

27. Comment #113873 by pkruger on January 20, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Rod-the-farmer:

she musta had little tits too.

Other Comments by pkruger

28. Comment #113962 by MuNky82 on January 21, 2008 at 5:02 am

HarryHUK:
I have a born again christian friend who,whenever we debate issues of faith,simply smiles at me and says "you really don't understand,do you",to which I reply "no"

Just add that there is nothing to understand, but being deluded is what worrying you.

Other Comments by MuNky82

29. Comment #114102 by Marc Weeks on January 21, 2008 at 11:27 am

I have read about creationists getting hammered in debates regarding things like transitional forms, etc., and then moving on to the next town, the next debate, and repeating the same arguments!

I guess at some point they must have decided that if they can't persuade fence-sitters or those on our side that EVILution is blasphemy, they'll content themselves merely with preventing defections from their own ranks.

Other Comments by Marc Weeks

30. Comment #176137 by LiseYates on May 6, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Nice analogy. I dig.

Other Comments by LiseYates