Take a look at this thread that I commented on
I am Gary White.
What do you think?
the universe has always existed. The big bang was basically a phase shift. a different form, but still from the universe.
Only by Faith can a human being ever believe in God. Therefore no Proof is ever given.
His way to believe in god is the same way to believe in any foolishness that people can create...
I read most of the conversation, i admire your patience with those people, because they are so, but SO ignorant and arrogant, that i've got sick just from reading it.
Also, you have used the "its just a theory", maybe you've got it wrong. But a "scientific theory" is an explanation for a phenomena, different then the common use of "theory", which is a hypothesis
I got frustrated reading your link. "they don't call it blind faith for nothing"
It's really, really sad how often the term "theory" gets taken out of context in these types of debates. It's called equivocation, and all you can really do when faced with it is try your damndest to step back and explain that sometimes, one word can mean more than one thing. Like arms, or train. Maybe link 'em to something like this: http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/words-with-more-than-... although that might be taken as demeaning. But if the shoe fits...
I read all of the debate you had with them. Arguing science with them is like arguing about the best kinds of wine with a 5 year old. First you must destroy the idea that faith is a good thing. Until they yield on that issue, every other thing you debate will make little or no progress.
Give them a million examples about how faith is actually a bad thing. Maybe that will give them something deep enough to think about and cause them to have a paradigm shift.
I just quoted Epicurus and Hitchens in reply to them. Maybe the mods will allow my comments? hahaha I doubt it though, because they are rather pointed words about the concept of god and how poisonous religion tends to be.
Also, you can link the Atheist Wager to them from wikipedia in response to their Pascal's Wager types of thinking.
They are in a bubble. If you look at the "scientific sources" they refer to other creationists and their books etc. They wouldn't know how to be an honest freethinking scientist even if it hit them in the face every morning. They are chasing their own tails in other words. Circular logic and parallelism are their motus operandi.
They need to understand the basic psychological concept as well as scientific principle that correlation does not mean causation. Basically they are too intellectually lazy to really research the verifiable and high probability causes of events etc.
I can say this because I was a believer that used to think that way about issues related to god and faith. If you examine every issue with a conclusion already cemented in your head, you can make anything conform to it with enough manipulation of the evidence. They are extremely dishonest or deluded or intentionally ignorant.
I can say that I was deluded and intentionally ignorant because I never had the intention to be dishonest about these serious kinds of issues and I think most of them are not intentionally lying. They actually believe that non-reality (simulacrum or alternate reality).
It isn't until life gets too painful or some other trigger happens that they might challenge their understanding of reality. The main thing we can do is just ask them as many questions as we can to help them think more logically and clearly.
After that, it is all up to them if they will be reasonable or not. It can be fun to debate but it takes a lot of preparation and research of the arguments, that is why I tend to just quote people that have been debating a long time since they have already formulated great counter arguments to these kind of template and mind numbing arguments that theists repeat over and over again.
Life is too short for me to waste my limited brain power and time addressing their every little claim. Present them with the best arguments that you can and then just walk away satisfied that at least they have seen those ideas and will have to wrestle with them in their own minds.
I will spend more time with people I care about or that are reasonable and actually want a productive two way conversation.
Good luck to you! Arguing with them is really quite meaningless after a while. You have some great ideas about arguing with them, but in the end they will either ignore your questions or throw them back at you without an answer. They don't think at all.