In answer to your question: I'm trying to get a book published which I believe could both break our roughly 80 year philosophical stalemate with the theists and position us to finally win our ancient debate with them. But I seem to be getting strangely little help or interest from our side. Its been kind of like trying to show a chainsaw to somebody who's totally preoccupied in cutting down trees with an axe. A sharper axe would be immediately understood, but as the chainsaw obviously isn't an axe it can't be worth the time that would be needed to take a good look at it. The latest installment was dead silence to my intruductory invitation posted here (in Strong Atheists) several days ago. For whatever it may be worth I've pasted below the very short essay that is now set as lead in to my blogsite.
Crystal Blue Persuasion
The following is a simple three step guide for constructive engagement with any proselytizing theist. It is, in effect, synopsis and clarification of an 'app' from my main essay 'Truth?'. My hope is that by directing interested parties first to this short and explicitly practical essay some may then become engaged enough to try the longer and more challenging one.
1. Inform the theist that he is offering proposals that you do not believe him to be able to qualify, through any coherent procedure for knowledge selection, as knowledge. Offer to open the debate with him at that level. Specifically, to work with him to arrive first at a procedure that you will both be able to understand to be functional. Offer further that if this step can be completed then you will invite him to clearly state his theistic proposals for your mutual application of the procedure to them, and that if they then can be seen to qualify through it you will publically embrace them, on the spot. Explain politely that you do not wish to waste his time or yours on a further replay of the sterile debate that has been going on between our two sides for thousands of years. Simply, that if he is willing to match your level of commitment, in engaging within a format that you can both understand to be capable of clear and final settlement of our argument, then you are keen to talk to him. But that if he will only engage in the absence of any such format – to hold open his option for declaring a draw, through play of the 'faith' card or some related piece of hokum like 'warrant' or 'non-doxastic justification' as soon as he can see his position becoming rationally untenable – then you have other and more productive uses for your time. He can accept, or he can decline. If he chooses the latter, then it will be with pretty clear implications for both himself and those to whom he had been trying to propagate his theism.
2. [He has accepted, and you’ve mutually agreed on a functional procedure]. Invite him to state his theism's defining proposals. Specifically, those which distinguish it from the all of the others, and from science (unless, of course, he would just as soon have you embrace any of those). Write his proposals down. Get him to sign the sheet. Because once you start applying a functional knowledge selection procedure to them – and they start to melt like sandcastles in the rising tide – he will expect to be able use the standard theist's dodge of linguistically obfuscating and morphing them to avoid your selection procedure’s gates. As in: “Well, I didn’t literally mean……..” and “Of course '……..' should be understood only in a metaphorical sense”, and the rest of that ancient bag of tricks.
3. [You now have the functional procedure and the signed list]. Patiently and systematically apply the procedure to each one of his proposals. Show him how it clearly fails to qualify. Show him that any relaxation of the procedure’s tests that is sufficient to allow his proposals to qualify will also and simultaneously permit qualification of an effectively infinite number of other and logically exclusive proposals (including, and most naturally, those of science). So, and from which, he can see that his proposals simply cannot be coherently selected. That he can have them, but ultimately from precisely the same wishful-thought basis that a boy on a rooftop can have knowledge of his ability to fly like Superman after watching a Superman movie. Go ahead and put him explicitly in the position of having to publically renege on your agreement, or else renounce his theism. [Note: Our side has been in a position to do this for at least the past couple of hundred years; but, in general, we have not. For some thoughts on how and why that has been, and whether our reticence has indeed been justifiable, please see another of the short essays at my blogsite: 'The Cuddly Kitten'.]
Primers for Step 3:
The essay ‘Truth?’ (access via 'view my complete profile' at the blogsite).
William Clifford’s classic essay ‘The Ethics of Belief’.
George Smith’s ‘The Case Against God’.
Michael and Monier’s essay collection ‘The Impossibility of God’.
General recent writings of the ‘new atheists’ (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Victor Stenger, Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer, Anthony Grayling, et al).
SB: If still with me, and willing to go a little further, then this link http://www.poppersinversion.blogspot.com will take you to the main essay. Any and all feedback much appreciated.
I help the atheist cause online by proliferating relevant news and videos on Facebook, YouTube, StumbleUpon, and this site, and by moderating an online atheist book club (please join us!) on GoodReads.
In person, I'm strong in my atheism but polite. I don't bring up the subject of religion unless it is related to something already in discussion -- simply because if the subject gets brought up by a religious person and they don't appreciate my opinion, they cannot blame me for the conversation -- but I will happily debate friends and family (for example, I have totally owned, more than once, my dad on the subject of theism/religion). I honestly haven't had much opportunity for debating in person; most of my friends are atheists or agnostic. The only friends who have brought it up recently are a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses (mother and daughter) who we play cards with on a pretty regular basis, and the daughter gets so frustrated with my skepticism that I don't think she'll ever bring it up again.
Perhaps less effective, but still fun, I have a couple of atheist shirts that I take immense pleasure in wearing in public.
Doin' my part in rural Missouri!
I am militant whenever the opportunity arises. Here is an example of one of my attacking methods from earlier this week in which I make unexpected use of the Ninth Commandment:
"I was delighted because my smile was that of a crocodile."
Lewis Carroll put it this way:
How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!
How cheerfully he seems to grin
How neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in,
With gently smiling jaws!