Reason/s & Belief

there has to be some general agreement among other experts in this field

keep in mind that even if these conditions are fully met, that does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion

inductive arguments do not have guaranteed true conclusions, even when the premises are true. Instead, we have conclusions which are probably true.

the topic that he is an expert on involves empirical phenomena

more importantly, it is possible for us to check on what he has claimed and verify it for ourselves

you start out with an ironic observation which is followed by an explanation which communicates that the foregoing was meant to be taken ironically rather than literally

a passage of the original material has been taken out of context and thereby given a meaning that is exactly the opposite of what was intended

these passages are being used in the implicit argument

unethical

implication

someone is quoted out of context so that their position appears weaker or more extreme than it actually is

When this false position is refuted, the author pretends that they have actually refuted the real position of the original person

it would not be unusual to see them as premises in arguments, either explicit or implicit

What is your real goal and what do you expect to get out of this?

A discussion is a two-way street where both contribute and what each person says actually reflects something they have taken from what the other says. In a discussion, you have to listen to what the other is saying and respond directly to it.

Is it Possible That You Could Be Wrong? If Not, What Are You Doing?

Please take stock of your motives and goals before proceeding

Familiarize Yourself with Common Arguments & Common Refutations

Atheists often hear the exact same arguments over and over from one theist after another

Providing the same, obvious rebuttals to the same, superficial arguments gets annoying, especially when more interesting options exist

it starts out sounding reasonable and gets you to agree to certain ideas. But after that, the meanings of key terms are changed

always make an effort to define, or ask for definitions of, the most important terms - especially when you know that they can be used in multiple ways

When clear definitions are provided, it is harder to subtly or accidentally alter them later on.

the better the support, the more justified the claim is

you are being asked to show good reasons why your claim should be taken seriously

by making a claim, you have essentially taken on an intellectual and a moral obligation to offer some support for it

you must already have reasons for belief that you consider good; they, then, should be the first ideas you offer as support

to say that a claim has been "proven" implies that it has been demonstrated as true to such a degree that dissent and disagreement are no longer reasonable

"proof" is treated as being a very high standard to meet

No one, however, can reasonably object to being asked to support their claims. If they think their claim is rational, reasonable, or justified, then they must think they have rational or reasonable support for their claim which justifies believing it.

Being expected to support one's claim is a standard which applies to everyone who makes an empirical claim.

good grounds for belief

good support for belief

asking for proof of a god is reasonable and justified if and when a theist suggests or even states outright that they have such proof

words that merely imply that they have proof — words like "definite" or "undeniable."

The more vague and ambiguous a prediction is, the more likely it will be to come true

when given an ambiguous prediction, people tend to believe whatever interpretation is most favorable to what they want

if you are assuming the truth of some portion of your conclusion, then your reasons are no longer independent: your reasons have become dependent upon the very point which is contested

assuming the validity of what the other person was questioning in the first place

A is true because B is true, and B is true because A is true

A is true because B is true, and B is true because C is true, and C is true because A is true

assuming the conclusion

assuming a related but equally controversial premise to prove what is at question

these assumptions are at least as questionable as the point at hand

A person making such an argument must defend this premise before the argument can have any force

this premise is far from obvious

support it

that is exactly the point being disputed

assuming

the arguer is assuming

questionable

the assumption is unstated and debatable

Genetic Fallacy - an ad hominem fallacy which involves the rejection of an idea or argument because of the nature of the person presenting it

what is being offered here is not an independent reason

most people are smart enough to avoid stating their premises and conclusions in exactly the same manner

it is important to know how to take apart an argument and examine its constituent parts

look at each piece individually

If there is an attempt to discredit a person or an organization before they have a chance to explain or defend themselves publicly, the purpose is to influence what people will think before they ever hear what is going on.

The desired result is that people will prejudge the arguments made or evidence provided because they have developed a negative view of the person offering those arguments or evidence.