TreesNightly

When I started Deity Shmeity my intension was to use it as a record of my exchanges with theists. Long time readers know that never really happened. My first attempt to publish a debate resulted in so much editing that I concluded my time was better spent taking the topic discussed and simply writing an article informed by the theistic objections. Why so much editing, you might ask? Well, debates, especially those on-line, have a way of branching off into new topics before the previous are resolved. Like the Hydra of mythology and Marvel comics, chopping off one head of a crappy argument just results in two more crappy arguments taking it�s place--all without an acknowledgment that the first head lies resting at my feet. More so, debates get personal. I don�t just mean they get all ad-hominemy, although that certainly happens, but also that elements from both my and the theist�s lives are brought up which I feel are either too intimate to post or too irrelevant to make public. Top tha...

10. The apologist projects qualities that apply to them onto you in hopes that it will equate all parties involved. They figure that they can�t lose the argument they are in fact losing because every one is relying on, say, faith. This ultimately ends the argument in a tie...if it were true, which it�s not. 9. Questions are worded as double or triple negatives in hopes that you agree to something that could easily be misread to mean the opposite. If you discover that you�ve made an error and correct it, the apologist labels you an inconsistent flip-flopper for the rest of your debate and/or life. 8. The apologist ignores common meanings of words and applies definitions that only other apologists accept as valid. They do this without telling you what their unorthodox definitions are until pressured. This method allows them to think atheists don�t know what we are talking about because, well, we don�t know what we are talking about. It's a breach of common vernacular in favor of co...