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!!

Creationism as pseudo-history.

Over the course of the past few years, we have noticed that creationism has been pushed as pseudo-science, but few people consider it's danger as pseudo-history.

You see history of any kind defines a people, gives them an origin. It is the study of the past, focused on human activity and leading up to the present day. More precisely, history is the continuous, systematic narrative and research of past events as relating to the human race.

For people like the creationist, people who have history and more importantly links to a past in which Christianity wasn't in charge, is rather inconvenient, as it raises many questions about the past and the true origins of man.

According to scientists, our humble beginnings as homo sapien, started around 200,000 BP in the Paleolithic era. According to the creationist who believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old, it's claim denies the history of thousands of cultures that came and went, for example, England's beaker people, or even the migrations of the First People from Asia to the new world.

It denies the Greeks and Roman empire, the Aztec, the Incas, the Indu culture and Chinese cultures. It denies many people their history and what shaped them as a race, a creed right down to the individual.

You really want to stop someone in their tracks, you deny them their identity as a Human being. And that starts back in denying them their cultural identity. Why do you think dying cultures on this planet fight tooth and nail to preserve their roots?

It shapes them, it defines them, and makes them who they are. History takes a great part in it.

And so, for the Evangelical movement, known for their aggressive proselytizing, part of their success is by denying the identity of a person and slowly attempting to replace it with the Evangelical Christian world-view.

And Creationism, is a nice way to do it. Only acknowledge the judeo-christian pantheon and "history". Bring the "Scientific" evidence, in a Orwellian Ingsoc fashion, rewriting history when needed or denying past transgressions in the course of history (crusades anyone?) as "True Christians do not do that" (another convenient form of historical revisionism).

Such revisions are meant to make it seem that they are indeed "Good people", while encouraging the evangelical double-think, loving thy neighbor while hating their differences, claiming the truth all the while they lie consistently in order to maintain the existence of a myth, and claiming to serve a prince of peace, while getting in conflict with right about anyone who's not one of their own.

The truth isn't pretty, I will show you the ugly.

Sunday Special #1: Todd Friel Explains Natural Selection

Are there questions left unanswered in your life? Don't fret, for fabtastic Mr. Funky Friel is in the house on Sundays to address any and all reader questions! To kick things off I asked him what he thought was natural selection's role in the biological world, and as a reply was sent this clarifying mp3! If you suspect this to be a jocular misrepresentation of what Todd believes or how he expresses his opinions, feel free to visit www.wayofthemasterradio.com/podcast and search for episodes with the words “monkey” or “evolution” in their description! Thanks, Todd, dude! Listen now!

Todd Discusses Natural Selection!

If you have a question for Todd about something, send it to me, I'll forward it to him, honestly. I'm sure he'll be more than glad to answer more questions!

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.