Philosophers and non-philosophers welcome. Our targets are clear. A good philosopher loves a good argument, and does not see arguing as a negative or bad thing. Religionists love to employ favourite fallacies and flawed reasoning. Here are a few of my favourites: -Petitio Principii (Begging the question) -Assuming the antecedent (okay in some classical logic, but not too good for the naturalism-supernaturalism debate)
-Circular thinking (the proof of God is in the Bible/Koran/Pentateuch, son, and the proof that he exists is the stuff he created.)
-Equivocation and co-option (pantheism and paganism are scientific, Newton was an alchemist and so that's scientific)
-Plain old confusion (faith can be the basis for knowledge)
-Diversion (the argument is really about A, which I can understand, not B, with which you are annihilating my woolly thinking and making my ears red)
-Funky epistemology: know by faith.
Critical thinking rules the day for AN Ratiocinators, and so ad hominem attacks, circular thinking, shouting, pouting and general nastiness are discouraged. Bad language is right out, because who really needs it to make a point. It takes up valuable effective arguing word space. The tone of your argument will be clean, and clean will it be. Threats are right out. Original thinking is welcome. Research and cite your source if you are really having at something.
The arguments of politicians, theologians and other non-philosophers are often easy to debunk when you know how, but sometimes one really has to think about it first. What does one do when logic and reason themselves are not understood? To win an argument
, one needs to be able to defend logic and reason. After all, since when does the god character bother with logic?