I can accept that (I haven't had much interaction with Belgian thought). That said, he's still making the mistake of assuming that because something is convincing to him, it's convincing o the theists. It's a good illustration of a flaw the anti-theist crowd engages in, even if he's not a member.A'isha said:
After bouncing all over the country, you get no sympathy from me on that point.Belz... said:
Local jargon sucks, particularly online when you don't know where someone's from, and the terminology is still being sorted out on this topic. 
Could be history will render my definition inaccurate. The reason I use it is because anti-theists (by my definition) start with the dogmatic position that religion is wrong, and find arguments to support their position. The "attack religion" idea is their central motivation, even tot he point of abandoning rationality. Fair enough, and I've been guilty of under-emphasis on that point. Your point of view is, obviously, what you're intending to bring the other person to (and for rational people, there's always the option of an alternative view that's not present at hte start of the conversation becoming the preferred option--ie, it's possible neither of you is right).
That said, what convinces you and your views on the topic only, under this model, serve as establishing the ideal end-point of the encounter. What a lot of folks forget is that it's not sufficient to simply point to the end point; the theists, quite obviously, aren't there yet, and we need to provide the path, meaning we need to work them through the logical arguments both FOR our stance and AGAINST their stance. That means understanding what their stance is in the first place, both because it's the second half of that equation and because knowing what they believe allows us to tailor our arguments to them. Again, saying that the Bible isn't true history isn't going to have much impact on a Wiccan, and saying that one interpretation of a holy book is wrong isn't going to have any impact on someone who doesn't believe htat interpretation anyway.
All of this assumes, of course, that the purpose of debate and discussion is to convince people you're right. My old rhetoric professor would cringe to hear me say such a thing--he always advocated viewing debate as "moving the conversation forward". Personally, I view it as a sword fight: we each have our points of view, and ideally one will fall and one will stand. Sometimes, however, both fall. You bring your best arguments forward, learning what the other person can do and suiting your arguments to them.
