Unrefutable theories

Thomas Eshuis

Hello fellow atheists, agnostics and skeptics!

I thought it might be interesting to share some concepts or debates you might have had with theists and conspiracy theories, where you have been unable to convince your opponent to see the flaw in their arguments and/or position.

The purpose is the learn from each other, so feel free to discuss the concepts mentioned here.

I'll start:

NDE or Near Death Experiences:
I have tried to convince a theist that Near Death Experiences, being personal experiences, cannot be considered evidence for the existence of an afterlife.
Sadly it quickly derailed in stream of logical fallacies including:
Appeal to the masses: Many people have had NDE's so they must be true.
Double appeal to authority: Atheist neuroscientist have had them and believe in them.
Straw-man arguments: NDE's do happen, just because they are personal experiences does not mean they do not mean anything. (claiming I stated otherwise).
You have an a priori dogmatic allegiance to materialism (just because I don't accept personal statements as conclusive evidence for the existence of an afterlife.


So, share your frustration or even better tips and help!

18AD

At risk of getting lambasted. :pac:

I tried to convince an acquaintance that tarot readings can have personal meaning.

He could not understand this at all.

robindch

Thomas Eshuis wrote: »

[...] you have been unable to convince your opponent to see the flaw in their arguments and/or position. [...]

I can't think of a better cure than laughter. See here.

The religious crave respect, usually by expending no more effort than proclaiming they believe something, and thinking themselves the better for it.

The least one can do is to deny them it.

muppeteer

18AD wrote: »

At risk of getting lamb basted. :pac:

Who us? Never:)

I've found if theories are untestable then they are as good as any old bull**** and indistinguishable from any other old bull****. In these scenarios it is best to just explain this as best you can and move on and have a beer.

If however, someones theory is irrefutable due to their differing definition of evidence then I find it very frustrating.
It's very tempting to think that if I can only just convince them to use a similar definition of evidence then everything would click into place for them and their supernatural theory would melt away. Hasn't happened yet though:)

A third and maybe the most frustrating irrefutable theory proponent is the one who ducks and dives behind sophistry and theology and anything else they can use to obfuscate their position from any logic or reason. For these discussions have two beers.

Thomas Eshuis

muppeteer wrote: »

If however, someones theory is irrefutable due to their differing definition of evidence then I find it very frustrating.
It's very tempting to think that if I can only just convince them to use a similar definition of evidence then everything would click into place for them and their supernatural theory would melt away. Hasn't happened yet though:)

A third and maybe the most frustrating irrefutable theory proponent is the one who ducks and dives behind sophistry and theology and anything else they can use to obfuscate their position from any logic or reason. For these discussions have two beers.

It's these kinds of theories or theorists I am talking about.

Thomas Eshuis

I am now in debate with the author of this hilarious site:
http://www.creation-vs-evolution.co.uk/

Who is the archetypical Christian creationist:

ironingbored

^^

Atheistic Evolution....This means that:

Nothing exploded into something - the Big Bang.

#EPICFAIL :rolleyes: