Atheist Armaments

A lot of the reason why this blog has been sparsely updated is because I spend so much time on other blogs and forums (and occasionally youtube) debating Young Earth Creationists (YEC’s) and Intelligent Design (ID) proponents.

Part of constantly standing up for Observable Reality ™ means doing a lot of research: reading blogs (Badastronomy, ERV, PZ Myers), information aggregates (TalkOrigins, AigBusted, AnswersInCreation) and reading about the opponent as well (AnswersInGenesis, Institution for Creation Resarch, True Origins). This series of blogs (and I’m not sure how many there will be) will highlight some strategies, tactics, and talking points for getting involved with YEC’s.

Why Argue

I say “argue” because arguments with YEC’s are rarely debates. They generally degenerate into gainsaying and the unofficial debate rule about logical fallacies ending a debate almost never applies. Although really, it’s not even an argument either, as an argument is (if I remember my Michael Palin correctly) a connected series of statements to establish a proposition. Nevertheless, I will use the term “argument” here, as it is close enough.

So you read some YEC psychobabble on a forum somewhere and it pisses you off. Should you start an argument? Before you reply, there are a few things to consider:

1. Time: Are you ready to devote a substantial amount of time to getting involved in an argument that is quite literally a religious argument? The longest argument I’ve been involved in was about 3 weeks. It was email correspondence with an ID-pushing Conservative. Most of the other folks on the mailing list had dropped off early on, but for some reason we kept going. Most of the arguments I get involved in are only a few days long, but are often very intense. Sometimes there are a dozen or so posts per day, if it’s on a forum. Given that Time is our most precious commodity, is this particular battle worth fighting?
2. Frustration: I’m pretty sure there’s a law somewhere, let’s call it “Aaron’s Law”, which directly correlates your frustration with the ignorance of the other person. The less educated, more indoctrinated they are, the more frustrating the argument is going to be for you. You may want to get a blood pressure screening and make sure you aren’t already Hypertensive before beginning.
3. Playing Field: Will you be arguing on their home turf, your turf, or neutral? Who has moderation capabilities? Ripping a YEC a new one on Internet Infidels or the Rational Response Squad is far easier than matching “wits” with them on TrueOrigins or a pre-dominantly Christian populated forum. Personally, I rarely argue an Away Game — I shoot for neutral areas, if possible.
4. Rules: Debating on Youtube is ridiculously frustrating — comments are limited to 3 per hour, 500 CHARACTERS each. The last time I debated anyone on there (and I hope it was THE last time) I had to frequently sacrifice some finesse or side-points because I wanted to ensure that my key points got through.
5. Resources: An internet connection is obviously required. You may want to start a bookmark folder specifically for quick access to various resources and articles you can cite in your discussion. Wikipedia articles frequently cite some good source articles. TalkOrigins also cites their sources, generally medical journals even, although I’ll frequently just cite TalkOrigins directly. Granted, Appealing to Popularity or Authority is not exactly “solid support” but it can frequently give you good talking points or references to real research.
6. League Play: Would you be arguing out of your league? Someone new to this shouldn’t be going up against Kent Hovind (with his patented rapid-fire “Hovind Hustle”) or Ken Ham (who, when faced with an uncomfortable question, immediately resorts to either “Were you there?” or “Where do you get your morality from?” as his Aces in the hole). Debating people who are way better writers or way more educated is a bad idea until you’ve got more experience.
7. Strategy: Last, but most importantly: What is your ultimate goal for debating, as in: What are you hoping to accomplish? Are you simply trying to defend a particular phenomenon / statement? Are you trying to troll an ignoramus? (not recommended — trolls frequently have troll-friends) Are you trying to set the record straight regarding a fallacious argument? (that’s my reason most often) Figure out your goal before you get started so that you’ll know when you’re done.

If the argument degenerates into gainsaying, where you are both literally saying “Oh yeah, well X is true!” “No it isn’t, Y is!” “No it isn’t, X is!” etc. then you really need to request a stalemate. It’s not winnable with people like that. Many of them are stubborn as heck and will accept nothing short of a submission - you may want to bring in some friends in that case. Regardless, choosing your battles before you fight them is a crucial point

In the next article, I’m going to discuss some common YEC fallacies and how to easily dismiss them.