You see a lot in religious 'debates' where fledgling atheists pop 'big questions' as if they are the first to think of them, and then get upset when a religious person doesn't seem to take the question seriously.

In fairness, that also describes 80% of the encounters I've had with a religious person trying to convert or influence me. The other 20% shamelessly try to appeal directly to emotions, either by attempting to shame me over real or perceived behaviors, or by saying things like "Do you have family who are believers? Don't you want to be with them in Heaven after you die? Don't you think they want you to be with them?"

If we're going to talk about self-righteous and ineffective tactics, there's plenty of blame to go around.

I agree though, that a petulant atheist is no less loathsome than a petulant proselytizer. There are some videos on YouTube called 'Ask an Atheist' or somesuch -- ostensibly it's a call-in forum for non-atheists to ask questions about atheism and to get an honest answer, and when that happens and there's a discussion, its great; but all-to-often it devolves into faux-intellectual arguments like "I've read more books than you, therefore you are wrong and need to read more books." or snark and sarcasm that doesn't answer anyone's question, but which apparently entertains their atheist audience and embiggens their e-peen. Sometimes its the caller's fault for calling in with an argument (and often supported by 'facts' that are widely accepted to have been dis-proven) rather than a question, which is a shame on them, but in more than a handful of cases its the host's inability to approach the question in an honest and respectful way that's a shame.

Someone like Richard Dawkins, while blunt and pithy, is mostly beyond reproach for the ways he argues the atheist case, but that's a high standard to achieve for atheist and non-atheists alike.

You see a lot in religious 'debates' where fledgling atheists pop 'big questions'

But, that's one of the two pillars of religion. It is all about people having debates about "big questions" of which they know nothing. No surprise there.

The other pillar is a clever exploit of the Kübler-Ross model, which the church already knew thousands of years ago and uses until present day. Everybody dies, best business model ever.

Look, if none of the "big questions" remain, what do you need religion for?

If you definitively know that there is no god, or if you do know that there is one, and if you know what becomes of you when you die... then what do you need a priest for?

Why would you give a pedophile philister a good life so he can eat from golden plates? Why would you worship a criminal association of miscreates? Why would you bow to the man who calls himself the representant of God (what an impertinence)?

The whole point about religion is that there need to be "big questions" which are unanswered, so only the chosen few who understand them can lead you and decrypt their meaning. And of course you don't know the truth, nor do you understand it, ever.

There shall never be a hungry priest.

Someone like Richard Dawkins, while blunt and pithy, is mostly beyond reproach for the ways he argues the atheist case, but that's a high standard to achieve for atheist and non-atheists alike.

Dawkins is a TERRIBLE role-model for atheists. He is the most arrogant and biased "this is obvious, you're stupid if you don't agree" person I can think of. And that is something that is a common sentiment I see in other forums - typically disliking him is one thread atheists and believers have in common :)

There shall never be a hungry priest.

Sorry but you are ignorant. There are many countries where being a priest (or equivalent in other religions) invites persecution from both the state and your community, conversion leads to ostracism, etc. Missionaries go to these places knowing they will be scratching to find money for food and accommodation, etc.

Even in developed countries like USA/UK, many people work for churches for a pittance.

I think you've been fed typical propaganda based on stereotypes around organised religion, typically Roman Catholicism (which is NOT synonomous with Christianity or religion). The picture of a pampered priest is not accurate as a general rule.

Sorry but you are ignorant. There are many countries where being a priest (or equivalent in other religions) invites persecution from both the state and your community

Well yes, because the dominating religion (state can also be religion) does not like those soul catchers to take away their sheep. What exactly is surprising you? Love thy next? Certainly, but only as long as thy next doesn't touch your revenue.

conversion leads to ostracism

Of course, since if you convert, you follow the wrong belief. There is only one correct belief, which we have millenia of wars and billions (not millions, billions) of people murdered to attest for. And you're still doubting that religion is abusive?

Ask a former Witness (if you can find one) about ostracism -- you need not go to far away lands to learn how abusive religions are. Or try to find a job in a catholic hospital (regardless of your qualification) if you aren't in their club.

Missionaries go to these places knowing they will be scratching to find money for food and accommodation

I hear the world's saddest song played on the world's smallest violin. Soul catchers usually still have a much better life than 99% of the people around them. I'm truly sorry if they have a little bit less comfort compared to at home, but they've made the decision to go to that place on their own.

You also must not forget that they're not doing this to help the poor, but they're doing this to help their cause.

Even in developed countries like USA/UK, many people work for churches for a pittance.

Wait, are you arguing in my favor or against it?
Of course people work for churches and other slavers for a pittance. That is the very problem. It doesn't matter whether it's the pope of the catholic church or Jenna Miscavige Hill's evil uncle we're talking about, or the Governing Body of the Witnesses. Or buddhists monks (or hindu priests if you will) which have almost twice the body weight of a typical worker in the same country (and who, unlike the worker, possess a shirt).

They're all operating after the same principle. Many work for a pittance so few can have a good life. Temples are full of gold all over the world, even in locations where people are absurdly poor.

This entire thread doesn't make sense. Without revealing the topic of debate the OP is essentially trying to say that any argument can be won via an predefined series of statements.

If you "won" the argument or not depends entirely on what the argument was about.

For Example:

Them: Why don't you [Wear a seatbelt]? You really should...

Me: Because I don't want to.

Them: Don't you want to have [Survive a car accedent]? You would really like it.

Me: No. I've taken a logical perspective on reality. What incentive do I have to do/believe [Wear a seatbelt]?

Them: You know, it will make you [safer].

Me: Quite frankly, the risk of [wearing a seatbelt] is a contradiction of logic and facts.

Them: That's not true!

Me: If it's not true, then tell me, what benefit is there for me to [wear a seat-belt]? Why should I?

Them: You know... because!

Me: No I don't; because what?! That's why I'm asking you!

Them: You know, our parents would want us to [wear a seat-belt].

Me: You know what? My dad wanted me to be a pro basketball player! Guess what happened? I became a video game programmer. Worked out really nice, didn't it?

Them: You just need to learn to [wear a seat-belt] because [the drivers manual] says [you should].

Me: So I can end up like [guy who died despite wearing a seat-belt]? No, I don't think so! Don't you know that there's a (??)% chance of [drowning in lake b/c of seatbelt], as well as a (??)% chance of [burning to death b/c of seatbelt], oh and let's not forget the (??)% [seat-belt strangulation] rate too. Even if I did want to [wear a seat-belt], it's like playing Russian roulette. Call it a good thing if you want. Even if it is, I'm not willing to [wear a seat-belt] because it is not of interest to me. I have more important things to worry about, and this is not one of those things. Lastly, if [wearing a seat-belt] is feasible, then why is [deaths in car accedents when people wear their seat-belt], or [time people have survived car accedents when not wearing a seat-belt]? Hm?

Them: Well, you really need to change your views on [wearing a seat-belt], it's really sad. [it's your funeral]...

In this case you are wrong, just because "Them" didn't cite the statistics that prove having your seat-belt on measurably increase your chance of surviving a car accident doesn't make your position correct.

Take this example:

Them: Why don't you [like peanut butter]? You really should...

Me: Because I don't want to.

Them: Don't you want to have [a delicious peanut butter and jelly sandwich]? You would really like it.

Me: No. I've taken a logical perspective on reality. What incentive do I have to do/believe [like peanut butter]?

Them: You know, it will make you [happy].

Me: Quite frankly, the risk of [liking peanut butter] is a contradiction of logic and facts.

Them: That's not true!

Me: If it's not true, then tell me, what benefit is there for me to [like peanut butter]? Why should I?

Them: You know... because!

Me: No I don't; because what?! That's why I'm asking you!

Them: You know, our parents would want us to [like peanut butter].

Me: You know what? My dad wanted me to be a pro basketball player! Guess what happened? I became a video game programmer. Worked out really nice, didn't it?

Them: You just need to learn to [like peanut butter] because [the food pyrimad] says [need the protean it provides].

Me: So I can end up like [guy who died b/c peanut butter allergy]? No, I don't think so! Don't you know that there's a (??)% chance of [being alergic to peanut butter], as well as a (??)% chance of [choking on peanut butter], oh and let's not forget the (??)% [peanut butter drowning] rate too. Even if I did want to [like peanut butter], it's like playing Russian roulette. Call it a good thing if you want. Even if it is, I'm not willing to [eat peanut butter] because it is not of interest to me. I have more important things to worry about, and this is not one of those things. Lastly, if [liking peanut butter] is feasible, then why is [peanut butter not allowed in <area where peanut allergies keep out peanut butter>], or [ham and turkey sandwichs exist]? Hm?

Them: Well, you really need to change your views on [liking peanut butter], it's really sad. [Peanut butters great]...

In this example, no-one won or lost because it a completely arbitrary choice.

This argument really sounds a lot like religion (insert "it's not about religion, it's about the existence of god! Hue. Hue. Hue. I'm So smart."). In which case it is not empirically logical to either believe in, nor deny the existence of (Lack of evidence is not proof). So... you can't really "Win" that type of argument either.. actually, it may be more logical to belive in god then to not... There are two statements with a truth value:

1) God exists

2) There is definitive proof that god exists

If (2) then (1) so (2) & !(1) is not possible, that leaves 3 options (a,b, and c) A=(1) & (2), B=(1) & !(2), and C=!(1) & !(2).

By observing our reality, B and C are indistinguishable... each option has a probability of being correct p(Option)... so

p(A)+p(B)+p(C)=1. Even assuming that p(A) could be shown to be 0, that still leaves p(B)+p(C)=1, where p(B) and p(C) are not possible to measure... by logic we must assume that p(B) and P(c) are both greater than zero. This is because Assigning p(C) a value of zero is the common definition of Faith, and Assigning p(B) a value of zero is in a similar manner an unfounded Faith. Since P(b) and P(c) are both non zero values, in an infinite number of samples (and all of space-time-universe/etc is nothing if not an infinite number of samples) then both probabilities will occur thus proving that god exists... or something like that, right?

Just wondering if there's anyone out there that shares a similar view, and forgive me for ranting, but I really need a moment to vent for a bit.

I'm not going to say what the actual subject of the argument is (it's extremely sensitive and I don't feel like arguing about it here; hint, it's not about religion), but so far, whenever this subject comes up, I'm usually met with the same old repetitive lines for their opposing views, repeatedly debunked myths, dogmatically adopted views/practice, and sometimes some ad hominems and strawman fallacies. It's as if we as humans are systematically trained to think that "this is how it is supposed to be" versus "what logical reasoning is there to continue on such a tradition/notion". Unlike my opposition, I use logic, facts, proof and evidence to back up my views. They normally go on and on with emotionally driven nonsense with no logical backing. It's kinda like this.

I got some observation on this based only on one thing, I can write here, I am curious what you will say

I noticed few years ago and i am saying to people sometimes that 21 June (or about) should be really treated as a middle day of the summer not the beginning of the summer, same with 21 december (longest night day) should be treated as a middle day of the winter not the beginning of the winter

this is logical for me

I say this to more than 10 people matbe almost 20 (and give

explanation that summer should be 1/4 of a year with longest days, winter with shortest) and guess what, NOBODY agreed

with me - I do not encounter as to today not 1 person who

will be agreeing with me here,

could i maybe test some people here?;/ would you agree or

disagree?

While I see your point as far as the solar cycle is concerned, at least here (Western Europe) the climate really starts being summer-like in June/July, and we basically never get snow before January. So as far as the climate is concerned, the terminology makes sense.

Just wondering if there's anyone out there that shares a similar view, and forgive me for ranting, but I really need a moment to vent for a bit.

I'm not going to say what the actual subject of the argument is (it's extremely sensitive and I don't feel like arguing about it here; hint, it's not about religion), but so far, whenever this subject comes up, I'm usually met with the same old repetitive lines for their opposing views, repeatedly debunked myths, dogmatically adopted views/practice, and sometimes some ad hominems and strawman fallacies. It's as if we as humans are systematically trained to think that "this is how it is supposed to be" versus "what logical reasoning is there to continue on such a tradition/notion". Unlike my opposition, I use logic, facts, proof and evidence to back up my views. They normally go on and on with emotionally driven nonsense with no logical backing. It's kinda like this.

I got some observation on this based only on one thing, I can write here, I am curious what you will say

I noticed few years ago and i am saying to people sometimes that 21 June (or about) should be really treated as a middle day of the summer not the beginning of the summer, same with 21 december (longest night day) should be treated as a middle day of the winter not the beginning of the winter

this is logical for me

I say this to more than 10 people matbe almost 20 (and give

explanation that summer should be 1/4 of a year with longest days, winter with shortest) and guess what, NOBODY agreed

with me - I do not encounter as to today not 1 person who

will be agreeing with me here,

could i maybe test some people here?;/ would you agree or

disagree?

While I see your point as far as the solar cycle is concerned, at least here (Western Europe) the climate really starts being summer-like in June/July, and we basically never get snow before January. So as far as the climate is concerned, the terminology makes sense.

as to climate then it relies how you define spring summer autumn winter in the terms of climate this is dependent

for example as today here 10 II there appears quite spring day, i could easily treat it as an early spring - in this definition spring would be considered more cold (as early sprong begins in february, but more nice

'perceptually' - also for example 1-10 september perceptually for me here (central europe) is usualy more like early autumn than summer

(you very often need to wear sweater about 1 september, it feels like autumn often) - with my definition summer shoud end well about 6 august so it is abit early maybe (it is often hot though you see sun is already lightning in more autumn way) - but i would like to prefer to treat august as an end of summer at the begining and early autumn later - its nicer perceptualy, when you define then an early autumn like yet hot - so those are the definitions what spring summer autumn winter are;

besides i think the new year should be not 1 january but just 10 days earlier in the longest night it is about 21 december

(sory for typos, for me this is just elegant and simple division,

about 90 days around longest night is winter, 90 days around longest way is summer rest is autumn and spring, this is much nicet than ofitial definitions here when i got yes 40 days of winter today officialy;/, when in reality (on my own ;/) i got 5th day of spring already

(and the weather is quite like spring today, i would like to go riding a bike now for a while, i will think about it)

Actually I did.

When I was 14 I started questioning my faith, I realized I believed in God out of fear, not faith. By 16 I declared myself as an atheist and started following debates and entered quite a few myself.

The point is that, at least in religion based discussions, there is hardly a winner. Truth is that the subject requires the proof of existance of one or more beings that are per defination unprovable. It didn't take me much to realize that, but still I kept going, thinking that there were probably people who were just like me a few years before - last about faith, too afraid to move away from it - and if I "won" those debates I would be helping them.

A little after I gave up of it and nowadays I would avoid entering those kind of debates at all costs. When I absolutely have to I bring the big guns as soon as possible to try to finish it as fast as possible. Still there is no joy for me to "win" those arguments.

To finish, whoever was talking about Richard Dawkins, I would like to point that attacking him doesn't make any of his arguments weaker. What you are doing is know as ad hominem fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem . Also, claiming that you know the ultimate truth about the life, universe and everything seems to be quite a bit arrogant by itself =p