do fundies ever realise when their arguements are flawed?

[wigglytuff]

, now a little while ago i had a chat on a website run by a fundie who tries to prove the bible with archeology.....now for some reason one of the minions said this "The TAG argument has never been sufficiently answered by anti-theists, and it never will. Michael Martin and other atheists have tried, but to no avail."
Now when i told him how thats not true he started to ramble off about other things and i believed he just ignored my answer about how dumb his statement was,so how often do you think fundies just ignore anwsers to their questions, or how broken their arguments are? (if you wana read a bit of the conversation here http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/02/01/Genocide-in-Canaan-Part-I.aspx)

[Nick]

All the time.  What other choice do they have?

[The Gawd]

I think they realize it, but they dont realize that it actually destroys their world view. Instead they point to another tenet of their belief to try to validate it, as if the other tenet being discredited means nothing. For instance they realize that the laws in the OT dont show a god of love. But instead of rethinking their stance because yahweh is a genocidal lunatic, they point to Jesus. Most really dont have the attention span to have each and every tenet of their belief taken apart.

[Star Stuff]

...so how often do you think fundies just ignore anwsers to their questions, or how broken their arguments are?

How often?  How about constantly?  As they don't care one whit about what's true, they must maintain a constant level of lies.

[Traveler]

I think they don't realize it at all. I think they're blind to anything that contradicts their brainwashing.

[One Above All]

I think some of them do, but they don't mind the lies. They desperately want to believe in their own BS.

[wigglytuff]

 have you guys seen some of the arguements in the comments sections of the link i provided by the a fundie named henry smith jr? do you think they are a good example of what iam talking about? He even has a degree at a diploma mill

[Graybeard]

, now a little while ago i had a chat on a website run by a fundie who tries to prove the bible with archeology.....now for some reason one of the minions said this "The TAG argument has never been sufficiently answered by anti-theists, and it never will. Michael Martin and other atheists have tried, but to no avail."
Now when i told him how thats not true he started to ramble off about other things and i believed he just ignored my answer about how dumb his statement was,so how often do you think fundies just ignore answers to their questions, or how broken their arguments are? (if you wana read a bit of the conversation here http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2013/02/01/Genocide-in-Canaan-Part-I.aspx)

Have you ever tried to argue with a schizophrenic in their moment of non-lucidity? You will find the same style of argument - dismiss your point without proof and then launch into a diatribe as why you do not understand because you just do not understand the "real" meaning.

The Transcendental argument for the existence of God^Wiki, as the Wiki article rightly mentions, presupposes Yahweh as the Trinity and also dismisses the possibility of all other gods. Essentially it is Pascal's Wager. Only by removing these obstacle could an argument take place, and you win as there is no proof of God.

The Bible is the only source for Yahweh, and even then it is flawed in its circularity. That aside, anything more than what is in the Bible is unworthy humans trying to understand what they call an ineffable Being. Even they admit on the one hand that this is impossible, whilst, at the same time telling you all wondrous things that they know for a fact about god... The mind boggles.

[wigglytuff]

you are right thats exacty what the guy did also another thing is that they ask a wierd question all the time- that if u can be wrong about everything you know you cant know anything like here whaaaaa but than again i suppose it speaks to how many flaws and problems there are to this kind of arguement

[The Gawd]

Perhaps we do a disservice by arguing anything else before they provide evidence for their god. Once we allow them to enter into evidence their imaginary god its inconsistent to then not allow their imaginary support. However fun it may be.

[Star Stuff]

I could only make it 7 minutes into that video.  Painful.  It's interesting how morons like this (and Ray Comfort) will always aim their questions at young students.  I wonder why they don't ask scientists of various sorts.  Cowards.

[wigglytuff]

I could only make it 7 minutes into that video.  Painful.  It's interesting how morons like this (and Ray Comfort) will always aim their questions at young students.  I wonder why they don't ask scientists of various sorts.  Cowards.

yeah well i had to skip a whole chunk of it cause i cant tell whos more annoying ray comfort or this guy

[jaimehlers]

I posted a response on the website linked in the OP to debunk TAG.  It can be summarized as follows:  "Logical absolutes are abstract descriptions of things that exist, therefore they do not require a mind to conceive of them, therefore the idea that there needs to be an infinite mind to conceive of logical absolutes for them to be true everywhere is unnecessary".

[wigglytuff]

i bet that message wont get approved or the guy will just respond with a random pile of gibberish that has nothing to do with the anwser you provided

[jdawg70]

I don't necessarily want to be 'that guy', but...
I can't say with any degree of certainty that I recognize when my own arguments are flawed.  I tell myself that I'm diligent about trying to spot those flaws, and that I do my best to avoid the (very human) tendency at confirmation bias, but I suspect I screw it up more often than succeed.

Seriously - confirmation bias isn't an easy thing to get over.

[Jag]

At least you realize that it can happen, and actively try to guard against it. Fundies don't seem to have that skill, self-awareness, or desire.

But I get what you say - it's hard to find your own logical fallacies. If you see it, you likely won't use it, so if it's there, you probably didn't see it.

[natlegend]

Ack, I watched that video and had to go eat a baby to feel batter.

*burp*

[wigglytuff]

I could only make it 7 minutes into that video.  Painful.  It's interesting how morons like this (and Ray Comfort) will always aim their questions at young students.  I wonder why they don't ask scientists of various sorts.  Cowards.

but what is the best way to rebut the arguement he is making