Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
I say, Pillock old chap, I'm afraid you're rather letting the side down. You're losing
too many debates to our young friend Angie.
Well, she's a very tough opponent. She has all the facts and figures at her fingertips
to counter everything I say.
Your problem is that you're being too specific. Let me give you some tips for putting forth
your arguments in a way that's much harder to refute.
Yes, I'd be very interested in learning how to do that.
Well, there are eight methods that are commonly used by experienced apologists. I've seen
them work very effectively against many atheists. If you use even half of them, Angie won't
know whether she's coming or going.
The first technique is called Playing the Mystery Card. When your opponent appeals to
science or reason, you must respond: "Ah, but of course this is beyond the ability of
science or reason to decide!" You must emphasize that science is narrow and limited in its
usefulness, and cannot tell us anything about what lies beyond the veil. Always remember
to quote Shakespeare: "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
of in your philosophy."
Secondly, there is a strategy called "But if fits!" Never be fazed by any evidence which
appears to contradict your hypothesis. Remember that any discrepancy between your hypothesis
and the facts can be explained away if you are sufficiently clever in introducing auxiliary
hypotheses. Meanwhile of course you must pounce on every discrepancy between your opponent's
hypothesis and the facts, no matter how minor, and declare the opposing hypothesis fatally
damaged by it.
The third method is called Going Nuclear. Use this one carefully. If you find yourself
being out-argued by your opponent's logic, you can say: "Yes, you might argue that way
on the basis of reason. But you are relying on the dogmatic position that reason is the
only guide to truth. You can't rely on reason to justify relying on reason - that's circular.
And if reason can't be trusted, then all positions are faith positions, and my position is no
more or less reasonable than yours!"
Another version of this tactic is to say that what you believe is true for you, even if
the opposite is true for anyone else. After all, what is truth? While your opponent is
pondering this question, you can make good your escape. Then you can go back to using
reason in your next debate, until it once more goes against you.
Next, we have Moving the Semantic Goalposts. Whenever your opponent points out contradictions
in what you have said, you can respond, "Oh dear. You thought, based on your superficial
understanding of my words, that I was making the statement X. I was actually making the
far more profound statement Y." You can always get away with this in relation to God's existence,
because God is such a nebulous concept.
The fifth method is called "But I just know!" Christians like you and I just know that God
exists - it is a properly basic belief. Our sensus divinitatus tells us that it is so.
Atheists don't know in the same way, because their sensus divinitatis has been damaged
by sin and pride.
The sixth method is Pseudoprofundity. You can string any random set of words together
and sound truly profound if you know how to do it. For example, "Sanity is just another
form of madness." "Love is just a word." "God is beyond existence and non-existence."
Next, we have Piling up the Anecdotes. You can get people to believe anything if you
tell them stories that confirm their prejudices. Just be careful not to add enough detail to
allow the story to be verified.
Finally, we have Pressing your Buttons. People tend to believe what they believe, especially
with regard to religion, for emotional reasons, not logical ones. Isolation, control, repetition,
uncertainty and emotional manipulation are key tactics to get people to believe what
you want them to believe.
Thanks! These are great tips. I can't wait to try this stuff out on Angie.