How to argue?

[Spock]

This thread is not aimed at provoking a discussion, rather it is the collection of a few thoughts I gathered while reading these boards. Naturally, I welcome any all all replies.

In my opinion far too many posters use ineffective arguments, which could not possibly be persuasive to the discussion partner, because they use incorrect “tools”.

When arguing with a Catholic, you are in an easy position: you can use any all platforms, the Cathecism, the Magistretium, the Bible, the Sacred Tradition, and any secular arguments you may think of.

When arguing with a Protestant, the “toolset” becomes smaller. Since Protestants do not acknowledge anything but the Sola Scriptura, your arguments should be based upon the Bible and nothing else, apart of course using secular arguments (if you so choose).

Finally, when arguing with an atheist (no need to capitalize it), the only convincing arguments are the non-religious, secular ones. Since atheists do not believe in the Bible, the Cathecism, the declarations of the pope, or any revelation, it is ineffective to use any of these methods to support your position. Naturally, they are great to clarify your position, but you should never think that you actually presented an argument.

This is the true and acceptable “ad-hominem” method. Base your arguments on what your opponent considers correct, not what you think is correct. The discussions will be much more fruitful. Obviously this is just a friendly advice, nothing more.

Have a nice day!

\//

 

[PJM]

=Spock;4862683]This thread is not aimed at provoking a discussion, rather it is the collection of a few thoughts I gathered while reading these boards. Naturally, I welcome any all all replies.

In my opinion far too many posters use ineffective arguments, which could not possibly be persuasive to the discussion partner, because they use incorrect “tools”.

Thank you for sharing such revelant and worthy insights.:D

When arguing with a Catholic, you are in an easy position: you can use any all platforms, the Cathecism, the Magistretium, the Bible, the Sacred Tradition, and any secular arguments you may think of.

As an addition to this thought, I will point out, that one should make the bible, out 1st. "go to" resource as non-catholics often read these post. Additionally. one should avoid all personal opinioms that are not easly proveable and supportable. Indeed, it is a prudent practice to always give support of your positions.

2 Tom. 3:16"16 All scripture is inspired by God and * profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.":thumbsup:

When arguing with a Protestant, the “toolset” becomes smaller. Since Protestants do not acknowledge anything but the Sola Scriptura, your arguments should be based upon the Bible and nothing else, apart of course using secular arguments (if you so choose).

Because responding to one of another communion, often require lenghty responces, it is good to recall the need to always be chairatble (Rom. 13:9). 

Seperate your points and thoughts for easier reading. Be as brief as is prudent. James 5:12 "But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your yes be yes and your no be no, that you may not fall under condemnation." 

The use of "smiles" breaks up the page, keeps it lighter, and may even add proper emphasis.:clapping:

Finally, when arguing with an atheist (no need to capitalize it), the only convincing arguments are the non-religious, secular ones. Since atheists do not believe in the Bible, the Cathecism, the declarations of the pope, or any revelation, it is ineffective to use any of these methods to support your position. Naturally, they are great to clarify your position, but you should never think that you actually presented an argument.

3 John 11: “11 Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. He who does good is of God; he who does evil has not seen God” Stick to proveable truths.

2 Tim. 2: “15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 16 Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more godliness,” "

The pillars for the defence of the Catholic Faith are:

1. Sacred Scripture
2. Sacred Tradition ("2 Thess. 2:15)
3. Logic and or Common sense. Proving Mary is the Mother of God: Luke Chapter 1verses 34 and 35: Mary is the Mother of Jesus, jesus is God, so Mary is the Mother of God!
   
   Try to keep in light and without Accusations, which accomplish little good. Humor and asking questions or posing your point through a question are good.
   
   Proving the existence of God: (highlighting is also a good tool.)
   
   ** Question**: What does it mean to say: “I think therefore iam; I am, therefore I think”
   
   Then explain what your point is. Dog’s can’t think. Only Humans can. Why is that?
   
   Be prepared to be rejected. Some folks just are not close enough to God to be able to accept TRUTH. 1 John 5: 13-17.

This is the true and acceptable “ad-hominem” method. Base your arguments on what your opponent considers correct, not what you think is correct. The discussions will be much more fruitful. Obviously this is just a friendly advice, nothing more.

   Very good advice:thumbsup:  (Indentation is also good, because it shows that you are taking time, that you really do care.)

   Agree and make a point to agree at every opportunity. It will keep the person your speaking with engaged in your post.

   Try to end evey post on a positive note, It will be the final thought they have of your post.

{QUOTE]Have a nice day!

    See what I mean? :tiphat: 

    This was a GREAT POST! God Bless you all! 

     Be sure to read through your post before submitting. I do and still mess it up:blush:

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I think St. Peter has the best answer regarding how to argue:

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
(1 Peter 3)

 

[JDaniel]

This thread is not aimed at provoking a discussion, rather it is the collection of a few thoughts I gathered while reading these boards. Naturally, I welcome any all all replies.

In my opinion far too many posters use ineffective arguments, which could not possibly be persuasive to the discussion partner, because they use incorrect “tools”.

When arguing with a Catholic, you are in an easy position: you can use any all platforms, the Cathecism, the Magistretium, the Bible, the Sacred Tradition, and any secular arguments you may think of.

When arguing with a Protestant, the “toolset” becomes smaller. Since Protestants do not acknowledge anything but the Sola Scriptura, your arguments should be based upon the Bible and nothing else, apart of course using secular arguments (if you so choose).

Finally, when arguing with an atheist (no need to capitalize it), the only convincing arguments are the non-religious, secular ones. Since atheists do not believe in the Bible, the Cathecism, the declarations of the pope, or any revelation, it is ineffective to use any of these methods to support your position. Naturally, they are great to clarify your position, but you should never think that you actually presented an argument.

This is the true and acceptable “ad-hominem” method. Base your arguments on what your opponent considers correct, not what you think is correct. The discussions will be much more fruitful. Obviously this is just a friendly advice, nothing more.

Have a nice day!

\//

For what it’s worth, PLEASE take the time to read all of the posts in a thread (or, at least, indicate that you haven’t done so) as it is a vulgar waste of time to handle the same propositions over and over again, in the same thread.

jd

 

[PJM]

I think St. Peter has the best answer regarding how to argue:

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
(1 Peter 3)

:clapping: You got my friend! Thank you!:tiphat:

 

[Schluns]

For what it’s worth, PLEASE take the time to read all of the posts in a thread (or, at least, indicate that you haven’t done so) as it is a vulgar waste of time to handle the same propositions over and over again, in the same thread.

jd

Amen to that!

1. Step away from your post for 5-10 minutes.
2. Re-read it your post
3. If it does not make sense to you, then delete said post, because it certainly won’t make any sense to anyone else either.
   4.If necessary, go to bed and sleep off whatever chemical is in your system then go to step #2.
4. Repeat if necessary.

Cheers

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

:clapping: You got my friend! Thank you!:tiphat:

Yeah, me and Pete go way back!

 

[rookieonedge]

This may sound lame, but would someone please explain how to separate a quote into smaller chunks to respond to a particular sentence? I click the “quote” button but get the whole quote. If I try to write between the lines, it’s hard to see if the post was mine or the original.

Duh?

And thanks!

 

[JDaniel]

Amen to that!

1. Step away from your post for 5-10 minutes.
2. Re-read it your post
3. If it does not make sense to you, then delete said post, because it certainly won’t make any sense to anyone else either.
   4.If necessary, go to bed and sleep off whatever chemical is in your system then go to step #2.
4. Repeat if necessary.

Cheers

You’re taking all the fun out of it.

jd

 

[PJM]

=rookieonedge;4866351]This may sound lame, but would someone please explain how to separate a quote into smaller chunks to respond to a particular sentence? I click the “quote” button but get the whole quote. If I try to write between the lines, it’s hard to see if the post was mine or the original.

Duh?

And thanks!

Sure

If you which to delete part of the said quote, highlite like you would in any WORDS program and hit “delete.”

If all you wish to do is to seperate the “quote” bracket it like this;

Do it exactly as shown at front

and at the end / quote] BUT IN Capitol letters] and walla, you did it!

God bless and thanks,

 

[Schluns]

This may sound lame, but would someone please explain how to separate a quote into smaller chunks to respond to a particular sentence? I click the “quote” button but get the whole quote. If I try to write between the lines, it’s hard to see if the post was mine or the original. You can do this by going to the A and selecting another color. People tend to use red or Blue to make their comments stand out.

Duh?

And thanks!

Or if you want to pull out certain sentences then highlight that sentence in the text and paste into your post:

Pasted in:
Do it exactly as shown at front

and at the end / quote] BUT IN Capitol letters] and walla, you did it!

Highlight it again then click on the conversation bubble in your tool bar. Its right next to the square pic with the mountain and sun on the left and the # on the right this will wrap the quote around it. Of course it does not say who you quoted.

Do it exactly as shown at front

and at the end / quote] BUT IN Capitol letters] and walla, you did it!

Then if you are not certain what you did, click preview post before submitting. Hope this helps!

And yes I am a

 

[rookieonedge]

Sure

If you which to delete part of the said quote, highlite like you would in any WORDS program and hit “delete.”

If all you wish to do is to seperate the “quote” bracket it like this;

Do it exactly as shown at front

and at the end / quote] BUT IN Capitol letters] and walla, you did it!

 

[rookieonedge]

Or if you want to pull out certain sentences then highlight that sentence in the text and paste into your post:

Pasted in:
Do it exactly as shown at front

and at the end / quote] BUT IN Capitol letters] and walla, you did it!

And yes I am a

Thank you very much. I’m still a novice, but I’m checking out all the suggestions. Actually, I had highlighted quoted sentences to be in red, but this is how it turned out.

Also, I don’t see the conversation bubble nor the house and mountain, but I see a #.

 

[Spock]

Thank you for all your replies.

Yes, indeed, one should take time to read all the replies, and digest them. I can promise to do so. It might not be always possible to answer all of them. Some posts are deemed more to the point than others, and I hope it is acceptable if one does not personally answer all the responses.

Brevity and clarity of the statements is also very helpful, as well as being polite. I wanted to ask about “being charitable”. Is it not the same as being polite? I would think so, but I may be mistaken.

When I read the rules of posting, it was stated that one must be respectful even if disagreeing. Very good rule, and I support it with all my heart. However, when one disagrees, there might be words to indicate the level of disagreement. How should one choose such words?

Let me give an example. Suppose that someone disagrees with God’s existence. I saw “rebuttals” which said: “So do you think that all those millions of people who believe in God are idiots???”. If I were allowed to state my opinion, I would say something very nasty and derogatory to a reply like this. Not just it is a non sequitur, but it is inflammatory, and totally incorrect. What is a proper way to respond to an answer like this?

Any replies will be appreciated.

Have a very nice day!

\//

 

[JustHuman]

Hey Spock,

As an atheist, I just want to say that the best think you can do when having a dialogue with one of my kind is to avoid at all costs the sterotypes you may’ve grown familiar with… Atheists aren’t all depressed, angry at God, convinced by Pascal’s wager, or nihilistic. Some atheists want to be Christians, but lack any compelling evidence. Some atheists are happy with their beliefs. All come to their conclusions through different means, all they have in common is the lack of belief in the popular definitions of God, so allow them to define themselves. That little bit of respect should give you a much less combatative exchange and a more open ear.

 

[rookieonedge]

QUOTE]
Let me give an example. Suppose that someone disagrees with God’s existence. I saw “rebuttals” which said: “So do you think that all those millions of people who believe in God are idiots???”. If I were allowed to state my opinion, I would say something very nasty and derogatory to a reply like this.

Indeed, as Christians, we should show respect and even mercy, as Our Lord, Himself, has shown mercy to us, for those who are seeking Truth but need remedial lessons in courtesy. It is a double wrong to respond with “something very nasty and derogatory.” Perhaps a reply in the form of a question might be more revealing, such as, "Do you consider the great Doctors of the Church intelligent enough to have written great works in theology and apologetics? I’d give examples of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa of Avila as well as some recent examples, such as St. Edith Stein, St. Maximillian Kolbe, and what about our beloved Pope John Paul II? Of course, this is a small sampling. Consider all the men and women of science and other disciplines. So much more could be said, but, as mentioned brevity is desirable.

 

[Spock]

Hey Spock,

As an atheist, I just want to say that the best think you can do when having a dialogue with one of my kind is to avoid at all costs the sterotypes you may’ve grown familiar with… Atheists aren’t all depressed, angry at God, convinced by Pascal’s wager, or nihilistic. Some atheists want to be Christians, but lack any compelling evidence. Some atheists are happy with their beliefs. All come to their conclusions through different means, all they have in common is the lack of belief in the popular definitions of God, so allow them to define themselves. That little bit of respect should give you a much less combatative exchange and a more open ear.

As a fellow atheist (visible in my profile) I agree with you completely.

\//

 

[Spock]

Indeed, as Christians, we should show respect and even mercy, as Our Lord, Himself, has shown mercy to us, for those who are seeking Truth but need remedial lessons in courtesy. It is a double wrong to respond with “something very nasty and derogatory.” Perhaps a reply in the form of a question might be more revealing, such as, "Do you consider the great Doctors of the Church intelligent enough to have written great works in theology and apologetics? I’d give examples of St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Teresa of Avila as well as some recent examples, such as St. Edith Stein, St. Maximillian Kolbe, and what about our beloved Pope John Paul II? Of course, this is a small sampling. Consider all the men and women of science and other disciplines. So much more could be said, but, as mentioned brevity is desirable.

I am sorry, but I am confused. I do not consider all the Christians or Catholics “inferior” in any way. I agree that many Catholics are far superior in knowledge and understanding to me.

But there are exceptions. There are quite a few, who use completely irrelevant and inflammatory “methods” of arguing. Just like I said, when they accuse the atheist responder of considering every Catholic an “idiot” for not accepting what millions hold true. After all, majority does not decide the validity of a claim, as we all know.

Is there any way to deal with such persons - within the forum rules, of course - besides ignoring them? Respect is great, but it has to earned, doesn’t it? One cannot respect everyone, especially those who willfully use incorrect arguments.

Have a nice day!

\//

 

[Ghoti]

As a fellow atheist (visible in my profile) I agree with you completely.

\//

Actually, your profile simply says, “Religion: None”, which, while suggesting atheism, doesn’t necessarily confirm it. You could merely be an irreligious spiritual-type, or a general theist, details-to-be-determined.

I inferred your atheism, tho’, from a combination of your profile and your opening post.

BTW, there is a fellow who goes to my church every Sunday. He’s actually an atheist, just non-practicing.

 

[Ghoti]

I am sorry, but I am confused. I do not consider all the Christians or Catholics “inferior” in any way. I agree that many Catholics are far superior in knowledge and understanding to me.

But there are exceptions. There are quite a few, who use completely irrelevant and inflammatory “methods” of arguing. Just like I said, when they accuse the atheist responder of considering every Catholic an “idiot” for not accepting what millions hold true. After all, majority does not decide the validity of a claim, as we all know.

Is there any way to deal with such persons - within the forum rules, of course - besides ignoring them? Respect is great, but it has to earned, doesn’t it? One cannot respect everyone, especially those who willfully use incorrect arguments.

Have a nice day!

\//

Ad hominems, straw men, red herrings, slippery slopes, etc. Gotta watch out for those.

Of course, when “spokesmen” for atheism come out with “The God Delusion”, “religion is the root of all evil”, Christians = “Christards”, etc, one often (and unfairly, I know) goes on the defensive when dealing with atheism. I imagine you’d brace yourself if you came out of your house wearing a “Brights” T-shirt and ran headlong into a roving band of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

BTW, I put “spokesmen” in quotes because I realize that Dawkins, Gillette, et al, do not necessarily speak for atheist attitudes toward theists than Bp Williamson speaks for Catholic attitudes toward the Holocaust. Just sayin’, it may be a case of oversensitivity or “embattled” mentality. Sometimes trying to read between the lines and see why offence has been taken – and therefore dished back – can help. (I’m one to talk, mind. )

Remember, too, arguments are just that. Winning one doesn’t necessarily make you right, just a better arguer. There are philosophy types out there who could probably beat me in an argument that I really don’t exist. And then others who could come in and successfully argue the other way. Doesn’t really (dis)prove my existence, only that, if I do indeed exist, I am a bad arguer.

Oh, and just for the record, the Bible is true, because it says so, and it’s the Word of God, and God wouldn’t lie. So there.