• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Need anti-inerrancy resources help

I can tolerate the opinions of others, that is why I asked for them. You confused not tolerating opinions with disagreeing on the merits of certain opinions.

If people are going to perpetually misstate the facts, my opinions, etc. then I am just as free to correct them. If they have a problem with being corrected, would you be as abrasive towards them?
 
If you unhappy here with the responses, you will probably be very unhappy with responses from the religious believers you going to speak with.
 
Gonna attempt to avoid the bickering but my 2c here:

You should attend this year as a silent observer, feigning belief and acceptance, and taking lots of notes.

Be heavy on asking opinions and thoughts, and give as little or as vague answers as you may. Get in as few disagreements and ask as few "painful" questions as possible, and take lots of notes.

Then post the notes on the structure of the arguments brought forth HERE so we can actually disassemble their claims at the state of their "(f)art"

At least that way, the week after the absolute abortion of logic that is their "conference", when all the little Liars for Jesus metastasize these views on the internet (including here), we will be ready for the influx of stupid.

And don't forget to take good notes.
 
There was saying in engineering, if you are not pissing somebody off you probably aren't doing a good job.

Whenever somebody tells me how wondeful I am I make sure I still have my wallet. Or expect somebody to try and sell me insurance.
 
Ruth Harris said:
steve_bank said:
Ok, what's the catch?
Click to expand...
He thinks his satirical skills are equivalent to the logic skills he is supposedly attributing to you.

Quite frankly, they are not. It is just tiresome for those of us who are reasonable adults.

Ruth
Click to expand...
Gosh I thought you liked me. Nobody likes me.

Maybe I'll get religion, Jesus ;oles me.
 
This past summer when I have engaged in a very successful activism project of visiting churches and having good discussions with them just after the church ends or later in-private with a pastor---I nearly always introduce myself at the beginning (to the door greeters, for instance) as an atheist and that I will not participate in what they do, but also will not disrupt them from doing it, but I do take lots of notes. They appreciate the heads-up, a level of trust is established, and there is (often, not always) enjoyment at hearing a different POV. At one church they were even asking me if I had questions during the event, during their Q&A portion. If/when I do have an in-depth discussion privately with the pastor, I email them in advance most of my notes so they know what kinds of questions to expect. I do not want our discussions to be a test of who has the better rapid-fire responses. I want them to be more carefully considered. If we do not have time to verbally discuss them all, then at least they will also have many more written down for their later review too.

I do not know precisely how this event will be formatted. It is not a church service, but more of a seminar split up over several days. My plan is to do the same as before and introduce myself at the outset and then see how they respond.
 
Cheerful Charlie said:
If you unhappy here with the responses, you will probably be very unhappy with responses from the religious believers you going to speak with.
Click to expand...

Being unhappy with the responses is not the same as being unhappy with the people themselves. I have had plenty of enjoyable discussions with people. I have become friends with one pastor as well.

Social media often brings out worse qualities in people, which is partly whey I began that activism project in the first place of having an in-person discussion. It is much friendlier and interesting and productive. One lesson in this thread I have learned is how many atheists also do not understand or appreciate that. They predict disaster when there is a strong track record of the opposite.
 
Brian, the idea of being an observer is a good one. Based on your posts here the theists will eat your lunch.

If nothing else they are well prepared for debate.

Evangelicals in particular feed on atheist debating the=m. It is a self fulfilling prophesy of a sort. They are doing g;prious battle in the name of a god against the evil non belivers.

I was in assisted living for a few yeras recovering. Several precahers held services in the community room. If you were on te floor you could gear the ranting. Evil atheists.

If yu want to get an understanding of what you are up against listen to Christian radio and watch Christian TV.

The Creation Museum

creationmuseum.org

About the Creation Museum

The Creation Museum allows you to venture through biblical history, stunning exhibits, botanical gardens, planetarium, zoo, zip lines, and much more.
creationmuseum.org creationmuseum.org

The Discovery Ibstitute. A vey slick science-academic looking site that pedals creationism and Intelligent Design. They are in Seattle. In the 90s a creationist Washington legislator proposed a bill that would require putting a disclaimer in all public school science texts that there are alternate explanations and theories. I exchanged email with the originator and was prepared to go to Olympia to debate it. He said he would welcome it. The chair of the committee assured me it would never get to a vote.

www.discovery.org

Discovery Institute

A public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation.
www.discovery.org www.discovery.org


These people are very serious and study how to respond to challenges philosophically, logically, metaphysically, and scientifically. They are not ignorant of science. I worked with creationist engineers. There are creationist with advanced degrees in science.

If you go into a public debate with only quotes from books you will be disappointed.
 
Last edited:
You demonstrate a fantastic understanding of the situation, steve. Great analysis.
 
Brian63 said:
This past summer when I have engaged in a very successful activism project of visiting churches and having good discussions with them just after the church ends or later in-private with a pastor---I nearly always introduce myself at the beginning (to the door greeters, for instance) as an atheist and that I will not participate in what they do, but also will not disrupt them from doing it, but I do take lots of notes. They appreciate the heads-up, a level of trust is established, and there is enjoyment at hearing a different POV. At one church they were even asking me if I had questions during the event, during their Q&A portion. If/when I do have an in-depth discussion privately with the pastor, I email them most of my notes so they know what kinds of questions to expect. I do not want our discussions to be a test of who has the better rapid-fire responses. I want them to be more carefully considered. If we do not have time to verbally discuss them all, then at least they will also have many more written down for their later review too.

I do not know precisely how this event will be formatted. It is not a church service, but more of a seminar split up over several days. My plan is to do the same as before and introduce myself at the outset and then see how they respond.
Click to expand...
The problem I see with the introduction as a part of your participation in the seminar is that they might see you as a chilling presence or even a challenge to seek out.

Seminars like this are indoctrination, and I have been to a few. They are workshops which drill canned and rote arguments into apologists, mostly similar to sitting in a few days of solid sermons.

As such, they will offer authoritative arguments on a variety of subjects from YECism to anti-masturbatory doctrines.

Very little of it will actually involve direct biblical reference, if any, so actually addressing biblical inerrancy won't help much, and they will not read any of it or care whether it exists anyway.

Instead, there will be a few presentations that are put together to seem "slick". There will be a logical fallacy buried deep somewhere in each presentation and the goal is to both FIND it and learn how to address the fallacies BEFORE they have a chance to just gloss past them.

There will additionally be discussion "decision trees" exposed. But if you challenge any part of the decision tree, they're going to clam up and instead of spilling the decision tree to later dissect and decimate, you will find them applying the decision tree rather than talking about it.

If you know good arguments that they gloss over in the decision tree "but what if the atheist asks _______" can be a good resource but it shouldn't be leaned on too heavily or they will figure it out and intentionally obscure their canned answers, or worse they will give you canned answers that will set you up to look a fool when you try to lean on them later.
 
Lots of churches do see me as a chilling presence or someone they are spiritually obligated to evangelize to. Online I have discussed and debated religion and philosophy for a couple decades, am familiar with their apologetic arguments. Also familiar with how to respond to them in ways that they never considered before. Have had similar conversations dozens of times in real-life, especially very recently. The arguments and claims and responses are often the same---but the environment is usually friendlier when in-person more than online.

I agree they will not read biblical errancy resources. However, many will not be aware that there even are any. Yes, they will be predisposed to dismiss or forget them anyway. But that is part of the purpose of the conversation. To "plant a seed" to make it harder. One pastor (the one I became friends with) mentioned he would soften his language against atheism as a result of our conversation. The sudden change surprised me, usually mind-changing would take longer. Other people and pastors did not express any kind of immediate change of view, but several expressed enjoyment of hearing the different POV and many heard responses to their apologetics that they otherwise never would have. They thought Kalam was a rock-solid apologetic, now they are hearing some objections to it they may have not thought about. Pascal's Wager is frequently brought up and they never before thought about several of the flaws in it.

Yes, it is a defense mechanism to obscure their answers or give canned answers. Them doing so does not at all mean this attempt was a failure though. It may be apparent to themselves and/or others (even if not immediately, but much later) that those responses were garbage. It can get people to question what other things are claimed by this type of group.
 
Glad something positive came out of you today.
 
Brian63 said:
Lots of churches do see me as a chilling presence or someone they are spiritually obligated to evangelize to.
Click to expand...
I guess my point is that conferences like that present an opportunity to do more than chill with your presence or soak their ineffective evangelization.

The discussions in a church are more "I need help" or "I have doubts" and then the pastor or priest throws out something witty or charming or passingly empathetic that will help someone who just wants to be seen as having concerns by someone they respect highly.

Seminars like this are a different breed. The people attending are expected to be obedient sponges who only ask questions asked by the ignorant or the believer.

If you disrupt that, you're going to find yourself "managed" in a way a pastor won't manage you. The wagons will circle.

Instead of having the scientologist give you the tour and show you the e-meter, you'll just get a cell phone camera in your face while people shout "WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMES".

The program is different at things like this because you aren't just "the lost" there, you are an active enemy. Because of this, the philosophy has to be different too, because they don't just not expect to be challenged there, they are there to feel challenging to others, and they are running the event for that purpose.

They will eject you if you push too hard against the purpose of the event, which is equal parts attempting to spawn the next WLC, Ken Ham, or whoever, and to give them all and opportunity to circle-jerk and feel smart.

If you open your mouth and are unprepared, you will be recorded and added to a gag reel that they play when of atheists they have tripped up. I've seen these and they're not pretty. They're also edited to remove any parts where you embarrass them.

Between 1/3 and 2/3 of them are supremely dishonest people, and are there to feel justified in belief that their mere belief justifies freedom from guilt. Vanishingly few are going to be capable of doubt and this kind of seminar of people gathered to eschew doubt together.

As such, it is just not worth it to argue the atheist position there. They are there to listen to straw-men of you, not to listen to you. And to watch their idols tear apart those straw men. And to not have to actually be challenged.

Take notes, and stay out of the way of that much ego. Pay attention and then use what you learn to preemptively tie a rope around their neck, make them agree to tie it even, before you let them know you are there to chase.
 
Thanks for your thoughts, Jarhyn. They are more carefully considered than many others here.

A couple points I will mention:
1. I have a fear of public speaking, and avoid doing so regardless of whether I was speaking to a sympathetic or hostile audience. I will not be making any kind of public show. I also have built up a lifetime of restraining myself when inside of a church and disagreeing with most/all of what is being espoused, saving my expression of my views until later. It is much more comfortable for me to wait when there is not a big audience and there are no cameras, to have a calmer conversation with a smaller group of people.
2. I am willing to be targeted as the "enemy". I want the experience, if they would do so (I do not know if they would). I am not only going to go into places that are already friendly to me. I am willing to risk more than that to help against the harm their religion does to themselves and others.

A couple churches I visited had people that were hostile to me. At one, after the most hostile person left the room a few others remaining expressed frustration with him and apologized for his behavior. So we had established some mutual sympathies with each other. Even at the most hostile church, I still had some friendly and productive encounters with a few.
 
Brian63 said:
Thanks for your thoughts, Jarhyn. They are more carefully considered than many others here.

A couple points I will mention:
1. I have a fear of public speaking, and avoid doing so regardless of whether I was speaking to a sympathetic or hostile audience. I will not be making any kind of public show. I also have built up a lifetime of restraining myself when inside of a church and disagreeing with most/all of what is being espoused, saving my expression of my views until later. It is much more comfortable for me to wait when there is not a big audience and there are no cameras, to have a calmer conversation with a smaller group of people.
2. I am willing to be targeted as the "enemy". I want the experience, if they would do so (I do not know if they would). I am not only going to go into places that are already friendly to me. I am willing to risk more than that to help against the harm their religion does to themselves and others.

A couple churches I visited had people that were hostile to me. At one, after the most hostile person left the room a few others remaining expressed frustration with him and apologized for his behavior. So we had established some mutual sympathies with each other. Even at the most hostile church, I still had some friendly and productive encounters with a few.
Click to expand...
Again, there are places and times to be the enemy, and there are opportunities that you will not get if you decide to be the enemy at the wrong place and time.

This is one of those opportunities. If you were at all skilled at it I would enjoin you to just feign interest in everything and not out yourself at all.

You will never have a better handle on what resources you need to discuss the errancy of the Bible than you will be able to get there, but only if you actually blend in.

Share your notes here, even
 
Another valid option is to help break their stereotypes. Put a face to their faceless atheist enemies. Have intimate talks with them about our beliefs. Let them hear what some of us believe from us firsthand, rather than having outsiders tell them what we believe and distorting it in the process. Face the spread of misinformation head-on.

That has a good track record. Not for everyone, everywhere, all the time. But as long as some progress is made, that is still some progress made.
 
Brian63 said:
Another valid option is to help break their stereotypes. Put a face to their faceless atheist enemies. Have intimate talks with them about our beliefs. Let them hear what some of us believe from us firsthand, rather than having outsiders tell them what we believe and distorting it in the process. Face the spread of misinformation head-on.

That has a good track record. Not for everyone, everywhere, all the time. But as long as some progress is made, that is still some progress made.
Click to expand...
Well, there is a time and place to put faces on atheists and have intimate talks.

This is how to understand what they believe and also why they believe it. There are plenty of people out there who want to make a battle, but battles were never won by one man against an army in head on warfare.

You're not the first atheist to want to do outreach.

You won't be the last.

But what you can be is the most successful by actually learning their playbook.

You can learn it so well you can show them the trick to it the next time you turn up there, before whoever-it-is pulls it out of their hat.
 
I have been involved in religious debates for decades online. To a lesser extent also in-person over the same time. Then over the last year have had them with more frequency and duration. I have heard the types of arguments, the playbook. Learned what types of responses are likely to be more or less effective. This is not new territory. People in this thread seem to mistakenly think so.

Unless my schedule otherwise conflicts, my plans are to attend some but not all (and hopefully the first at least) of their seminars. It spans several days and several subjects. In this thread I will not be discussing how things played out. Even though my activism project over the last several months has been very successful, I do not see people in this thread willing to grant or believe that. Instead people are largely predicting disaster. If things instead go very well, my merely saying so would not convince them of that. So I have no interest in discussing the results. All I wanted was some resources for the exact purpose I stated. Not the other purposes that others in this thread have falsely attributed to me. They are for the purposes I stated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom