Page 1 of 1

The unofficial rules of religious debate...

Posted: 2004-04-06 03:29am
by haas mark
Enjoy. ;)
#1 The burden of proof is always on your opponent, even when it isn't.

#2 Your opponent is always somehow wrong, even when they're not.

#3 It is notoriously difficult to determine exactly what constitutes "proof." Exploit this relentlessly by claiming your opponent hasn't proved a thing.

#4 If your opponent appeals to authorities such as theologians, scientists, or philosophers it is never valid; if you do it then it is valid.

#5 When your opponent attacks you personally, it's always an ad hominem. If you do it, then it clearly isn't an ad hominem.

#6 Creation/Evolution is highly improbable, but here we are. Therefore Creation/Evolution must have happened.

#7 If you are a theist, you are free to claim that a god speaks directly to your mind or heart. If you are a nontheist, you are free to claim that theists who receive communication from a god must be suffering from a socially acceptable psychosis.

#8 If you are a theist, you are free to claim that nontheists do not have any morals or ethics. If you are a nontheist, you are free to bring Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, and Invisible Pink Unicorns into the debate at every opportunity.

#9 Your opponent's personal experiences are never valid; but your personal experiences are always valid.

#10 When your opponent makes an argument and you do not have a good counter-argument, you should force your opponent to define any terms that you think are sufficiently vague, preferably with an encyclopedia article or a 20 page definition. Repeat the process at your leisure.

#11 If you are a theist, you are free to claim that most people throughout history have believed in a god or gods; if you are a nontheist, you are free to retort that most people throughout history believed the sun revolved around the earth.

#12 When your opponent wants to make their beliefs public policy, it's always wrong. When you want to make your beliefs public policy, it's always right.

#13 Scientists who believe what your opponent believes are clearly wrong. Scientists who believe what you believe are clearly right.

#14 Argue relentlessly that your opponent is closed-minded, but that you are not.

#15 Your opponent did not come by their beliefs rationally. But of course you came by your beliefs rationally.

#16 If you are a theist, exploit the fact that nontheists can't explain how life arose from nonlife. If you are a nontheist, accuse the theist of appealing to a "god of the gaps."

#17 The fact that people have killed in the name of your beliefs does not disprove your beliefs. But people who killed in the name of your opponent's beliefs disproves your opponent's beliefs.

#18 Your opponent's scholars are always wrong. Your scholars are always right.

#19 When your opponent uses an argument that makes no sense to you, laugh at them and call them stupid; when you use an argument that makes no sense to your opponent, laugh at them and call them stupid.

#20 Your opponent is clearly nuts, but you are not.

Posted: 2004-04-06 03:31am
by Darth Wong
Humourous, but also a horribly obvious Golden Mean fallacy. To say that evolution is just as improbable as magical instantaneous transformation of clay to fully developed humanoid man betrays total ignorance of the process, not to mention basic logic.

Posted: 2004-04-06 03:32am
by haas mark
Darth Wong wrote:Humourous, but also a horribly obvious Golden Mean fallacy. To say that evolution is just as improbable as magical instantaneous transformation of clay to fully developed humanoid man betrays total ignorance of the process, not to mention basic logic.
True. This was just something I pulled off another board. Too many people (elsewhere, of course) use these all for it not to be enjoyed here. :P

Posted: 2004-04-06 04:13am
by EmperorMing
Too funny and too true!

Re: The unofficial rules of religious debate...

Posted: 2004-04-07 02:41am
by Peregrin Toker
verilon wrote: #2 Your opponent is always somehow wrong, even when they're not.

#5 When your opponent attacks you personally, it's always an ad hominem. If you do it, then it clearly isn't an ad hominem.

#9 Your opponent's personal experiences are never valid; but your personal experiences are always valid.

#10 When your opponent makes an argument and you do not have a good counter-argument, you should force your opponent to define any terms that you think are sufficiently vague, preferably with an encyclopedia article or a 20 page definition. Repeat the process at your leisure.

#13 Scientists who believe what your opponent believes are clearly wrong. Scientists who believe what you believe are clearly right.

#14 Argue relentlessly that your opponent is closed-minded, but that you are not.

#15 Your opponent did not come by their beliefs rationally. But of course you came by your beliefs rationally.

#18 Your opponent's scholars are always wrong. Your scholars are always right.

#19 When your opponent uses an argument that makes no sense to you, laugh at them and call them stupid; when you use an argument that makes no sense to your opponent, laugh at them and call them stupid.

#20 Your opponent is clearly nuts, but you are not.
I say that all of these apply to political debate as well.

Posted: 2004-04-07 02:45am
by Rogue 9
Let me guess. Its off to NucleusWeb for these next, right? :lol: