Arguing with fundies from the wrong side of the fence.

[Spoonist]

Just some food for thought.

Although smackdowns on internet sites feels good I find it mostly uneffective when actually making people THINK about their own beliefs and convictions. So what I usually do when debating/talking to fundies in real life is that I first ask them about their faith and then attack their convictions from their own faith.

Examples (These will be against christians since those are the ones I meet in real life)

Christians vs homosexuality
First I ask how they personally rate different sins. Is there a difference?
Then I ask about the difference of NT vs OT.
Then I ask which 2 sins which JC mentions the most in his parables and preachings.
Then I explain that according to the bible all thoughts and acts of a sexual nature that is not within your first marriage is sin. And although they may perceive things differently the bible quotes JC as preaching that 2 sins will keep you from entering his kingdom: wealth and divorces(the hardening of hearts).
So then I ask them what personal reasons they have of prosecuting some sins and not the sins that JC is preaching against.
Then usually the discussion goes into if we or god should judge people and if it isn't JCs own words that says that we should forgive the sinners since we are all sinners.
etc
This approach usually stops them cold, especially when I've asked them to bring their bible. I've so far been able to get 5 out of 7 to stop talking negative about homosexuality and one of those 5 was a priest who used to have cermons on the topic who doesn't anymore.

Christians vs abortion
First I ask 2 fundamental questions;
Is there an afterlife and a purgatory?
When babies die do they go to the afterlife or to purgatory?
Now almost all christians believe (without biblical support) that there is an afterlife and that yes innocent babies will go to 'heaven' because anything else is cruel.
That's when I ask if people who come from a lesser upbringing get more leniency when they die. Again almost all christians think that you are judged on your actions regardless of circumstances.
So then I ask them why they wish to sentence innocent people to purgatory.
etc
So far I've only had this discussion 3 times (when visiting the US) and have so far been most successful with it.


Now the point again is not the arguments themselves, (which you probably can come up with better ones), but the tactic of using arguments from within their own belief system.
This in my opinion is much more effective retorics than arguments 'against' their faith.
With this approach I've also helped in the deconvertion process of a handful of people. Something which I find much more satisfying in the long run than scoring concessions. I don't know but I think that the same principle could be used in online debates as well.

[Terr Fangbite]

Either my belief system is more unique than the one you're describing, or you have some pretty weak christians on your hands. Looking through your points, I'd have to say it doesn't change my opinions in the slightest.

[Darth Wong]

Honestly, it's a bad idea to let the fundies dictate the terms of the debate, and that's what happens when you try to argue from the tenets of their own beliefs. I find that they are usually much more befuddled when you reject their beliefs as premises for the simple and obvious fact that a premise is supposed to be verifiable, and their beliefs are not.

What usually gets them is the fact that they are so completely accustomed to others wordlessly accepting unspoken premises like "if the Bible says it's bad, then it's bad" which they actually cannot justify when challenged. They expect you to retort with "you're interpreting it wrong" and don't know how to react when you say "who gives a fuck what the Bible says; it has no more moral authority than a Bugs Bunny cartoon".

[Nick Lancaster]

Now the point again is not the arguments themselves, (which you probably can come up with better ones), but the tactic of using arguments from within their own belief system.
This in my opinion is much more effective retorics than arguments 'against' their faith.
With this approach I've also helped in the deconvertion process of a handful of people. Something which I find much more satisfying in the long run than scoring concessions. I don't know but I think that the same principle could be used in online debates as well.

Unfortunately, in the online environment, you're not really debating in real-time (i.e. forcing people to think rapidly). I've seen your approach used on other boards, and those threads tend to degenerate into link posting battles - with nobody reading anything, just saying, "Look, see, someone says this!" (The Christians use sites biased in their favor, and vice-versa.)

When you can't separate your targets from their support mechanism (i.e., the rote recital and other cult-like behaviors), it is much more difficult to break through. Your goal should be to get them to think, not force them to fall back upon the 'Pastor Doohickey says such-and-such is evil,' or 'The Bible says so.'

The difference between this and the Creationist KnowledgeSpew, which I call 'hopscotch logic' - is that you're following a linear argument, rather than moonlighting for Confuse-a-Cat.