Simple Counter-evangelism 101: Open-source methods

Ok I had a few requests on youtube to post a link to the text form of the "Simple Counter-evangelism 101" series of videos that I have made.

You see, it's a a document that contains all the tips and tricks that I have made concerning WOTM's tactics and against evangelism in general.

So I have compiled it as a PDF. Now there is a fun thing that occurs with this document. Here is where you can download it.

http://www.youshare.com/view.php?file=simpce101.pdf

It's Creative Commons. Meaning? You can feel free to redistribute it and moreover ADD TO IT.

You see, as time goes by, evangelists change their tactics, or some other atheists have their own methods that are efficient as well. Those should be added to the document. I can't think of everything and while I do have plenty of experience in dealing with fundementalists, I am not alone out there.

So why not add to their experience and methods to the mix, and therefore STRENGHTEN the counter-evangelism effort? So, I have layed out a basic framework in the document, and you can all build on it.

In other words, I removed the "blank page problem". You don't have to fear the blank page, there is no blank page. So bring in your tips and tricks, bring in your ideas on how to make it better and redistribute it.

Soon enough, this simple pdf can grow into a book that brings in all the tools, tactics, and information to activists on what to expect, and what to do about it.

The truth isn't pretty, now add to the ugly!!

News Mash : News illiteracy on the rise!

I've personally been off WotM for some time now, and actually find myself smiling at my podcasts directory, as I have a dozen hours of material to go through. Why I smile, I don't know. I'm weird that way.

A reader of ours sent the Watchdog crew a message concerning a recent gem in WotM news coverage. Yes, they do news. Science news when they disagree with the results, religion news, funny news, religious news, politics when they pertain to religion, etc. Inspired by this message, I decided to check the show out with my own ears. It's amazing! So let's examine the hour 2 news bit on WotM Radio on October 15th!

I can reed news reel gud

It's that time of the year again when the Nobel prizes start rolling out. Let's see how WotM's unbiased news hawks cover some items of this most exciting of ceremonies!

Tony Verkinnes, WotM news anchor and stoic counterweight to Todd's exuberance, sits in his chair, prays to God that his mic won't fail and starts his reporting. The news item that's at hand here concerns the fact that Al Gore won the Nobel peace prize, which is odd to Tony, because global warming is a fairytale. Of course, it couldn't have anything to do with someone working to encourage people to work together in harmony towards a good cause, being rewarded for propagating such selfish ideas is outright silly! Tony also passingly mentions that Al Gore kills babies, so he surely cannot be a man of peace. How relevant to the story, I'm glad you managed to sneak that in, Tony.

Tony finds relief in the fact that other Nobels go out for silly things too. Actually, he goes on to build a case that the whole Nobel ceremony has withered into a shebang of silly, and this to him perfectly discredits Al Gore's ideas in the process. For example, the Nobel of medicine, was awarded to a pair of researchers investigating the side effects of sword-swallowing and the literature prize was awarded to a linguist on her research on the word “the”. Now if anyone at WotM had paid more attention, they would have noticed, that among these prizes, we find that the peace prize actually went to the Air Force Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, for suggesting the research and development of a “gay bomb”. What? No Gore?

Of course no Gore, because I'm going through a list of the Ig Nobels. Tony just somehow “forgot” to mention this? This strikes us as an attempt to poke at the scientific community, trying to somehow signal to the listeners that “Gosh, those scientists are a kooky bunch”.

The Ig Nobel prizes, if you do not know (shame on you), are a spin-off and parody of the “real” Nobel prizes. It's a play on words, as you can read it as “ignoble”. The Ig Nobels are handed out by actual Nobel prize winners, to scientists and researchers for research that “first makes people laugh, and then make them think”. Did you know, that a hamster gets over a bout of jet lag faster when he ingests male potency medication?

Now let's not be hasty and throw blame around before we've considered the possibilities. I see a couple of possible scenarios here:

A) Maybe WotM studios received this list of prizes from someone that intentionally left out the crucial two letters “Ig”. Maybe it's not all their fault? Still, it's the Nobel prizes. Once. A. Year. Pretty much everyone runs into them in some form or another, digital or cellulose, it's not too hard to do a little background checking on something like this. If this is the case, it's a prime example of what I consider to be one of the most damaging effects of fervent fundamentalism: you lose your critical faculties. Hear/read something, eat it up, just as long as it sounds good to you. An example of information illiteracy and reader bias.

B) They read a story on the Ig Nobels and just ignored the letters"Ig", because of course that's the Nobels the story is written about, since they have never heard of the Ig Nobels. Ig is just something that they don't have to worry about. Mash the two stories together in your mind and you're good to go! A failure in fundamental literacy, the words are there but they are not heeded.

C) They intentionally didn't discern between the events because they are pushing an agenda and needed something to stick it to some liberal wackjob whose pitch-black soul is fueled by satanic ectoplasm that he extracts from the succulent eyeballs of cute little babies.

D) We listeners were undergoing a mass hallucination when in reality Tony was actually making perfect sense, covering the Ig Nobels in a sound and lightly humorous fashion as they should be.

None of these sound too good. I'm especially worried about the fourth one. Can you come up with more?

We've sent WotM Radio requests to address this issue on the show, as what they are doing is, intentionally or unintentionally, deceiving their listeners, peddling a distorted view of science by offering a misrepresentation of the facts. Nothing new there. Except that we now know that with the Fundie(™) method, you can get up to 78,5% more logical fallacies into two minutes of speech!

Nobel Prizes, official site
Ig Nobels at Wikipedia
The news bit in WotM, at beginning of the show

And then there were five...

I would like to take the opportunity to announce my joining of wotmwatchdog.org. For those who are youtubers, I am "that guy with the masks and the creepy voice" (at the very least, if your name is Todd Friel).

For many months, I have been opposing WOTM and been quite verbal on how they are merely con-artists who sell their pseudo-science as fact.

I am glad that I found some like minded people to exchange ideas on how to counter Ray Comfort's cash cow, which is really only but diminishing the collective human IQ by several notches.

And so, I will contribute to this project to the best of my ability, and have a blast monkey-wrenching their attempt at controlling the populace.

The truth isn't pretty, and I contribute to showing the ugly.

TPW

Homer Gots Nothin'

The guys at Way of the Master love false analogies. In fact, they use them so often and with such voracity that it is incredibly easy to peg WOTM Radio listeners simply by the way they talk. I have had the opportunity to stumble across many such individuals in recent weeks.

Today, I'm going to give you a sneak peak at the flawed logic in one of Todd's awful analogies by letting you eavesdrop on a conversation I had recently in a Christian Hip-Hop chat room. See if you can spot it. (The names of the Christian theist and the chat room have been changed to protect their anonymity.)


Christian Hip-Hop Radio Community -- Sept. 26

Real: Do you believe Homer wrote the Odessey[sic]?

Former Follier: I don't care whether or not Homer even existed. Using your world-view, I am not in danger of his damning my "eternal soul" to hell. I am indifferent to the existence of Homer. I have never read his supposed works nor do I maintain a stance on his existence.

Real: Okay do you have any books that you read???

Former Follier: Of course, I do. The bible.

Real: LOL... So you read the Bible??? For what?

Former Follier: Because it's a good read. Aren't you going to ask me if the authors of the bible existed, Real? That's what you were stacking me for, right?


For anyone who finds themselves unfamiliar with WOTM Radio and the tactics they use to try to back unbelievers into a corner, the preceding dialog may not hold much relevance. Let me try to make things just a bit clearer.

Todd is often confronted not only about the authenticity of the bible but the divinity of the bible. As a response, he devised a brilliant analogy comparing the canon of the bible against another antiquated text, Homer's The Odyssey, by showing how many more original copies and partials there are of the bible than any of Homer's works. If you are unable to see the false dichotomy I urge you take another look.

I accept the bible as an authentic historical text but that in no way imbues it with supernatural powers; it simply means that it is a book and that it is old. At this point I must concede that Todd is right; the bible is a much more authentic work of fiction than The Odyssey.

Why did Christ die?

I recently had the opportunity to interact with the author of an evangelical Christian blog through comments on one of his blog posts. The title of the entry is entitled "Christ Died For Sinners" which immediately caught my attention.

After reading the short entry and the enclosed quote, I submitted a question in comment form. To my astonishment, I got a reply. Not only do these bloggers seem to be amped up for evangelism but interested in apologetics as well. I welcome their arguments.

Former Follier Says: September 24th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Christ died in order to save a fallen creation by taking the sins of an infinitely wicked world against an infinitely holy god upon himself, does that about sum it up?

One question: If our sins are so abhorrent to god as to allow his “son” to be the propitiation for our sin, then what is Jesus doing sitting at the right hand of god right now? If the sins of mankind are punishable by eternal damnation, shouldn’t the sacrifice bear the burden? Three days in the ground hardly seems “just”.

Good thing it’s only a fable.

Josh Says: September 24th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Former Follier,

you obviously have your doubts as to whether or not the biblical account of Jesus death and atonement really is a fable or you wouldn’t have bothered checking our site. Jesus suffered the full weight of God’s anger for all the sins of all His people before he died, while he hung on the cross, and when he cried out “it is finished”, he signified that he had fully drunk the last dregs of the punishment that all his people deserved. It is certainly a mystery that Jesus could sustain an infinitely intense dose of God’s anger, enough punishment to keep all His people in Hell for all eternity. Only Jesus could do this because only Jesus was and is both God and man. His human nature was enabled to do what no other human nature could i.e. soak up all the wrath of God and come out the other side. The gospel is foolishness to the natural man - it is a mathematical improbability too great to fathom and yet it is the truth. God has no physical form and yet all power to create and sustain all things. Because something is a mystery doesn’t mean it isn’t true. For a simple analogy imagine God’s wrath like a tap with an infinite variety of pressure and volume settings - God says in his word that some will suffer more in hell and some less - all will suffer according to the nature of their sin. God turns the tap of his wrath to the precise measurement of what that sinner deserves. Jesus takes the place of all his people beneath the deluge of Gods wrath and God turns the tap on full bore to blast the soul of Jesus with the full weight of hell that all his people deserve. The volume and the pressure of that tap are of such severity that they fully satisfy the requirements of God’s justice. So severe was this punishment that the contemplation of it caused Jesus to sweat blood.We read it. We believe it.

Former Follier Says: September 25th, 2007 at 3:39 am
Josh,

Your assumptions that I am still wrestling with my beliefs are false. Simply looking at my online nickname (a portmanteau of “Former Follower” and “folly”) is a testament to that fact.

However, I still fail to comprehend how a god could send himself in human form to die for the sins which he allowed to enter the world in order to appease himself. It not only seems self-serving, it seems to be superfluous. Especially taking into consideration the fact that there was no good reason for him to supposedly create us in the first place. According to Christian theology, we are here to serve and glorify him. He already had a “heavenly host” of created beings (with free will as is evidenced by the fall of Lucifer and his demons) with no other purpose but to glorify and praise god (as the story goes).

Regardless, for god to send his “son” (himself in human form) for the sole purpose of dying to absolve a contrite mankind from its sin, doesn’t that equate to suicide? Whether or not Jesus killed himself is irrelevent; the fact that he came to earth knowing full-well what would occur meant that he submitted to and pursued his own death. It’s akin to the “suicide by cop” phenomenon on a cosmic scale.

The problem lies in your the last sentence of your reply: “We read it, we believe it.” I certainly hope mankind will have moved beyond such mental lethargy two thousand years from now at which point the Harry Potter chronicles could be considered diviniely inspired holy text.

Former Follier Says: September 25th, 2007 at 3:43 am
To clarify things a bit, I did not actively seek out your site or even your content, necessarily. I did a generic Google search for “Way of the Master” (which my website is devoted to countering) and stumbled across your blog. Divine providence, perhaps?

Todd Friel is a moral relativist and he doesn't even know it.

The WOTM crew is fond of speaking in terms of moral absolutes.  The whole "Good Person Test" is, of course, rife with them.  Occasionally, Mr. Friel will find himself witnessing to someone who disputes this claim.  He has some very clever ways of tripping them up, and he usually succeeds in making the mark look foolish.  But that's not the point of this post.

The point of this post is that the critics are right.  There are no moral absolutes.  There is no action a human being can commit that is intrinsically wrong in all possible contexts.  The moral value of an action is determined by its context.  For example, nearly all of us, regardless of faith or lack thereof, would agree that killing people is morally wrong...  Most of the time.  However, we would likely also agree that killing a person might be morally justified (or even morally imperative) in some rare cases.  We may quibble over exactly where the line is, but we agree that the line exists:  Killing people is usually morally wrong, but sometimes it's not.  The morality of the act is determined by the context in which it is committed.  This is true for all possible human actions.

Recently, while broadcasting from the Minnesota State Fair...

We interupt this blog entry for a trip down memory lane.  My first encounter with Mr. Friel was at the Minnesota State Fair in 2005.  Ah, those were the days.  Todd, if you're reading this -- and I know you are -- I was the guy who wanted to pretend Darth Vader was real on the grounds that he's a much cooler fictional character than God.  You also commented on my t-shirt, which read "Talk nerdy to me."  We now return you to your previously scheduled post.

...Mr. Friel witnessed to a young man who argued a similar case.  Todd, however, successfully tripped him by citing rape as an action that is intrinsically wrong in all contexts.  The young man, unfortunately, was unable to respond adequately.  Mr. Friel ended up looking right, and his victim ended up looking foolish.

But as we know, appearances can be deceiving.  Our young, anonymous friend was right, he just didn't know how to enunciate it.  Here's the response he was unsuccessfully floundering for:

Yes, rape is morally wrong in all possible cases.  However, it is still a matter of contextual morality rather than absolute morality because the concept of rape has contextual elements built right into it.  Strip the contextual factors from the concept of rape, and you're left with sex.  Now, it's a near-certainty that secularists and theists would quibble a whole lot about where the line between moral and immoral sex lies, but again, we can agree that there is a line.  Sex performed in a forced or nonconsensual context falls on the "morally wrong" side of that line.  But just like with killing people, it's the context that makes it wrong.

Now, I know some theist is going to come along and smugly ask about where atheists get their morality from in the first place.  And yes, there is an answer to that.  But it's a topic for another day.

Pascal's Wager vs. Losing Your Eyebrows

Hello everyone! Henwli here, the latest official contributor to WotM Watchdog. I'm an English major student from Finland with a strange fetish that involves iPods and Way of the Master Radio. Further introduction can wait as I tentatively stick my metaphorical toes in the virtual waters of online authorship with this little ditty:

Now, if you step outside of your house and get near a road, there's a chance you'll be wrestled into the back of a car, clobbered senseless and later wake up on a hill without your eyebrows. This stuff apparently happens.

Everyone knows (Blaise) Pascal's Wager, right? In short, the argument goes that if God exists, it's ultimately better to believe in Him, because if you don't you are headed straight to hell. The wager is based on simple math. Heaven is infinitely good, and hell infinitely bad. If you believe, either you go to heaven or nothing happens. If you don't believe, either you go to hell or nothing happens. So basically you're left with two choices:

A: nothing (0) or infinite good (+∞)

B: nothing (0) or infinite bad (-∞)

So, just in case God exists, aren't you really better off putting your money on the selection that will let you suckle angel teat for infinity after your time here is done? A fool would put their eternity on the line and willingly choose the hot poker up the bum option, surely.

Few people take the wager seriously any more. It's nothing more than a simple scare tactic. The WotM ministry has reinvigorated this old beaten battle horse and rides it's rickety carcass to town with their fishermen every day! Of course they don't present the wager in it's classic form, but sneakily implant it in their droning witness encounters.

If a person they're interviewing says that they do not believe in the Christian God, or they do not believe that they're going to hell, or they don't have a specific moment when they were “born again”, or hell, just happen to have one of the thousands of available attributes that makes them “not Christian” to a WotM advocate, they will be posed with a question:

“Rergardless of what you believe; if what I'm saying is true (that God judges everyone according to His standards), would you go to heaven or hell (implied infinity)?”

This is actually Pascal's wager in disguise.

By taking a person through the Ten Commandments, the WotM witnesser establishes that the witnessee (I'm making up words as I go!) has actually broken several of God's laws; that they are adultering, blasphemous thieves. Now in the theoretical situation that the supposed hell (and thus its counterpart also) exists, how screwed are you. Infinitely, of course. The question they pose always contains that one particle I can't quite understand – the “if”, which implies that the “nothing happens” scenario has also been taken into consideration. Why do they say “if”, if they truly, truly believe that what they say is a stone cold fact. Does it sound more persuasive? Isn't that being disingenuous toward you own beliefs? In essence the question posed is:

“You're a bad, bad person and I love you and God loves you, but if what I'm saying is true, would you rather choose:”

A: nothing (0) or infinite good (+∞)

B: nothing (0) or infinite bad (-∞)

The whole Pascal's wager is implied within this technique, and it works just as well in this guise: you still need someone who finds it in themselves to believe in these things. Non-believers, I believe, are called non-believers for a reason.

“Dear Henwli. I write in teary-eyed with shaking hands to thank, because you have saved my soul by converting me to believe in God with Pascal's super awesome wager! It totally rocked my socks right off my feet! And I was wearing shoes! But what did the eyebrow story have to do with anything? Thank you, you are a true angel! XOXOXOXO P.S. u r sooo hot"

It has been actually documented that there is a chance that someone will nab you off the street, beat you up and steal your eyebrows. We could go to the previous victim (who is, I am sure, the first victim in a long line of malevolent attacks that will keep all owners of eyebrows on their toes for decades to come) and observe his hairless ridge. If asked, he will most likely tell you that the event was very unpleasant. Now, the next time you go out, ask yourself is it worth the risk? There are two chances:

A: nothing (0) or you have a merry skip across the park and greet the birds that chatter the message of all-permeating happiness and universal love (+1)

B: nothing (0) or you get beaten up, lose facial hair (-1)

You'll notice that infinity does not appear in this scenario, but has been replaced by (arbitrary) finite numbers. Of course, one of these options is statistically more probable, but both options are based on the world we live in and are absolutely feasible. The infinity in the original wager is irrelevant, because it relies so much on speculation. Math that requires you to believe in the existence of a number didn't really apply last time I checked.

Living life under irrational fear brought on by a faulty mathematical equation sounds kind of exotic though, give it a shot and report back to me how it worked. And by the way, if you do send me e-mail or comment on this post, be careful not to be electrocuted by your computer.

Name That Logical Fallacy

For those of you who are still in the dark about this snake oil salesman, this will serve as a good introduction. Please watch this brief video and post your thoughts in the comment section. It will be interesting to see what everyone's views are.

Todd Friel: Master Debater?

Hi folks, BoxerShorts here. I'm the newest member of the WOTM Watchdog team. Check out my own little corner of the web, The Underblog, for a different take on evangelical Christianity from an atheist perspective. There isn't much there yet, but I have plans. Oh yes, I do.

Anyway, now that introductions are out of the way, here's what you came here for:

Even among atheists, Mr. Friel has a reputation for being a skilled debater. While this is somewhat justified, it is mostly undeserved. Yes, he appeared to hold his own admirably against Dan Barker, and while I haven't heard the Eddie Tobash debate (I really need to download that one of these days), rumor has it he did pretty well there, as well. But appearances can be deceiving. Todd Friel is not a skilled debater.

Actually, let me qualify that. I don't know if Mr. Friel is a skilled debater, because I've never heard him debate. At least, not honestly. What he is skilled at is cheating at debate. I merely suspect, strongly, that he lacks skill at honest debate, because otherwise he wouldn't have to cheat.

Take a look at the Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies. For all intents and purposes, these are forbidden in formal debate; a debater who uses them excessively automatically loses the debate by virtue of having used them. Likewise, they should be avoided in informal debate, but the rules there aren't quite as cut-and-dry. Let's take a look at a few that Mr. Friel uses frequently.

Arguments from Ignorance: Mr. Friel frequently challenges atheists to prove God doesn't exist. Well, in the most general possible sense, we can't. But we don't have to. As Isaac Asimov once said, "I don't have the evidence to prove God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

Irrelevant Appeals: Mr. Friel uses these often, usually in the form of appeals to fear, pity, or wonder. While these can be persuasive, they have little to do with the matter at hand. In addition, they are irrational by their very nature, as they are designed specifically to exploit the listener's irrationality. Every time he brings up Hell, he's making an appeal to fear. This tactic is especially dishonest considering that the very existence of Hell is a subject of the very debate he's engaging in. Which also makes it an example of Circular Reasoning, also known as Begging the Question, a phrase that Mr. Friel frequently misuses, much to my annoyance.

Straw Man Arguments: Mr. Friel has a different Theory of Evolution than modern biologists. His version addresses the Big Bang, the formation of the solar system, and the spontaneous origins of life on Earth. The real Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with any of that, it addresses one phenomenon and one phenomenon only: The changes of populations over time in response to environmental pressures. The origins of the universe and of life on Earth are covered by other, separate (though related) theories. Todd's version of evolution also predicts that dogs can give birth to cats and monkeys to humans. Again, the real theory says nothing of the sort (rather, it states that monkeys and humans -- and cats and dogs, for that matter -- had a common ancestor, which is a much different claim). In fact, if either could be shown to have happened, they would disprove the Theory of Evolution as we know it. This is a Straw Man Argument: Todd claims that the Theory of Evolution is absurd, and indeed his version is. But since it in no way resembles the real theory, his argument has no relevance.

These are just a few examples of logical fallacies Mr. Friel has (knowingly, I suspect) engaged in. So how to we counter it? Well, that's the $64,000 question. As I said earlier, Mr. Friel is very good at cheating. He's very slick at sneaking these fallacious arguments past people. If I go through one of his shows line by line, I can catch a lot of them, but I'm not skilled enough to do it in real-time. We need to find someone who is, and send them off to go toe-to-toe with Todd.