His reasoning, I can only assume, is that atheists will believe that he truly has their best interests at heart and will indeed stop using these arguments. I'd love to return the favor for theists, but I can't think of any arguments they have that can't be taken apart on their own merits.
Anyways, let's see what he has to say, shall we? I apologize for the length, but I think it's worth understanding why these arguments actually work.
Doug Eaton believes that we should not:
1. Assume that because you compare theism to believing in pink unicorns or fairy tales that you have made a good argument.
Okay... so, maybe you were going to refute that argument to show why it's not good? What we're doing here is making an analogy, Doug. We have no good reason to believe in pink unicorns. We see drawing of pink unicorns everywhere. Children love them. We can imagine them. We can discuss their habits, desires, wishes, dreams and accomplishments. Despite all this, we have no legitimate evidence for the existence of pink unicorns. That's a lot like God. It's a good argument until you can refute it to show why the analogy is flawed.
2. Become hostile and use degrading vulgarities while maintaining that Christianity is an immoral religion.
Alright, I'm not sure if you mean that it would be hypocritical to be hostile and use vulgarities while calling Christianity immoral, because it wouldn't be hypocritical at all, or if you mean that it just won't be taken well. You're probably right, it generally won't be taken well. That doesn't mean it's not still deserved or, in the case of the latter point, true. Christianity is, after all, an immoral religion. What else would you call a religion that allows for slavery, child abuse, murder and eternal torture on the basis of an incorrect guess? I would also encourage your side to avoid becoming hostile, using vulgarities or accusing atheists of immorality. We can refute the latter, you can't.
3. When you are having trouble answering an argument posed by a Christian theist, simply say, “well even if this were true, it doesn’t prove the existence of the ‘Christian’ God.”
So an example would be, let's say, the Big Bang argument. What set the Big Bang in motion? Were I to, for the sake of argument, grant that it could have been some sort of God, why should I then concede that it would also have to be the Christian God? Sorry, Doug, this is still a valid point. The burden of proof is on you not only to show that there is a god, but that it's your god. Otherwise it could very well be the deist god, who started the universe and buggered off, or a pantheist god who started the universe by being the universe. It could be Atman, Ymir, Nox or any of a billion other gods we've seen on this planet, or something else altogether. Those are pretty poor odds, Doug. You still have a lot of evidence to present, and you're not off the hook just because you think yours is the best.
4. Assume that simply because you explain a phenomena from a naturalistic perspective that it constitutes an argument which must be true.
Here's where we get back to Occam's Razor. It is possible that the Black Cherry Soda in my mouth is actually an illusion perpetrated upon me by a mischievous boggan, who has stolen my soda and is drinking it himself. Or it could be that I'm actually drinking the soda. Let's take a look at which one is more likely to be true.
With Occam's Razor, we look at how many assumptions each argument makes. The first is that the supernatural is possible, that such things as boggans exist, that they are capable of illusions involving taste and touch, that they would be motivated to perform such illusions on humans, and that they like Black Cherry Soda. Assumptions in the second argument are that I can trust my taste buds to reliably describe what I'm eating or drinking and that the flavor of the soda in the can is correctly described on the can's label.
By definition, Doug, a supernatural explanation is less likely than a natural explanation. That's what makes it supernatural. We have yet to see any sort of precedent whatsoever for legitimate supernatural explanations. Fewer assumptions are made in natural explanations, therefore those arguments are to be preferred. That's not to say that they are definitely the truth but, until we get compelling evidence to the contrary, we can safely assume that they probably are. Again, the burden of proof is on you to show otherwise.
5. When arguing against the Christian God, simply say that you only believe in “one less god” than most people, as if that does not require you to defend an atheistic understanding of cosmology, anthropology, ethics, philosophy of history, philosophy of politics, philosophy of science, and epistemology.
It... doesn't require me to defend all that crap. In fact, the two are so unrelated that I don't even know how you put this together.
First, the "I believe in one god fewer than you" argument isn't really an argument; it's an illustrative tool. The goal is to get the theist to consider all the reasons that he or she disbelieves in other gods and then consider why those reasons are dismissed in the case of his or her own god. It's to show that we agree on most stuff, it's just this one point where we think you're being inconsistent.
Second, none of those things requires a theistic mindset. None of them contradicts an atheistic mindset. We don't have to reimagine every field of knowledge to confirm our beliefs, Doug. We just have to check to make sure that our beliefs are consistent with existing knowledge. So far, yeah, that's been the case. Anthropology may not have anything to confirm or deny the existence of a god (though I would suggest it does deny all gods pretty strongly, for the sake of argument let's say that it doesn't) and that doesn't matter. That only means that it contradicts neither of our beliefs, so we can both have the exact same views in anthropology. No contorting must be done. So far, we haven't had to contort at all with any of these subjects. I can't say the same for theists. That whole evolution thing really threw you for a loop.
6. Make metaphysical statements that suggest that metaphysics are a useless waste of time.
Rrrrrrrright. Contemplating the nature of reality is fine. The problem with metaphysics is a very low bar for entry. It all too quickly becomes a masturbatory enterprise for people who don't really know what they're talking about or what metaphysics even is. Saying that all metaphysics are a useless waste of time is incorrect, yes, but massive, massive segments of it are exactly that. Metaphysics has become a new word for people who like to sound "enlightened". Like "spirituality". They are buzzwords. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
7. Argue that we should only believe things proven by empirical evidence without proving it with empirical evidence.
Proven by empirical evidence? No. Shown as more than likely by empirical evidence? Yes. And I can prove that.
We will create two categories: one favoring evidence, one against.
In the "For" Column, we'll list Things Which Have Evidence And Are True, and Things Which Have No Evidence Which Are Untrue.
In the "Against" Column, we'll list Things Which Have No Evidence But Are True, and Things Which Have Evidence But Are Untrue.
You might have spotted the trick already. The fact is that it doesn't matter how many examples we can come up with for the "Against" Column, because the second category in the "For" Column is literally an infinite list. There is no end to things that are untrue and which have no evidence.
Therefore, it can be established that evidence is at least a better guide than flipping a coin. Until you can demonstrate a better system, we'll go with this.
8. Use logic like it is a universal, transcendent, unchanging reality when atheistic naturalism cannot account for universal, transcendent, unchanging realities.
Logic is unchanging? Says who? As we learn more, we refine logic to fit reality and more accurately predict the truth. Doug, you're really putting the wagon before the cart here. Not to mention that your people invent new logical fallacies constantly, so we get to figure out why they're fallacies, using analogies as demonstrated in #1, and add them to the Big Book Of Logic. You do have a Big Book Of Logic, don't you?
Also, take a look at #7 again. I can demonstrate in the same way why logic works. Let's count out how many illogical assertions are untrue.
9. Argue that there is no evidence to believe in the existence of God because all the evidence that is produced fails to pass the standards of evidence which have been constructed from the belief that God does not exist.
You believe the standards of evidence were formulated around the idea that God does not exist? What happened to all those genius scientists who were believers? You know, the ones your side loves to trumpet as though they were walking proof of God's obviousness? Newton and the like?
The standards of evidence were not stacked against God. They were constructed to predict reality. They've been working pretty well so far, see #7. God has yet to show up.
10. Argue that human beings are robots, puppets, and machines programmed by natural selection in a closed system of cause and effect, and then argue for free thought and moral agency.
Fair enough. I'm not a big fan of physical and chemical determinism, either. We're certainly shaped by our experiences and our genes, but within those frameworks we do have the freedom to choose. I assume that's what you mean by free thought.
Moral agency is a stickier issue. Can we blame people like Jefferson for owning slaves when that was just the zeitgeist? The answer is yes, though our blame is tempered with the knowledge that he was not the general commanding atrocities, merely the soldier carrying them out. He can be blamed for his lack of courage, conviction, perception, perspective and reason, but it is the zeitgeist itself we must blame for the atrocities of slavery.
I have no doubt that our generation will be similarly condemned for issues we do not see as obviously moral questions in our times. My money's on eating meat. Give it a few hundred years and a different perspective, I suspect future generations will wonder how each of us ever justified the casual murder of thousands of animals to feed ourselves, much less the number societies murder as a whole. The more I think about it, the harder time I have finding ways around it. We might very well be wrong.
But I digress. God isn't necessary for free thought or moral agency, sorry. Experiences and genes shape us, and there is no external absolute moral authority, but the former does not remove our ability to choose and the latter does not negate accountability for our beliefs and actions.
11. Place your ultimate trust in human reason while believing that man’s mind evolved from lower animals such as monkeys and will continue to evolve until we become the monkeys from which the minds of the future will have evolved.
Oof. Not an English major, were you, Doug? I see where you're going, though. We have to acknowledge that we're flawed, and trusting a flawed system is a bad idea. That would be the case, except that no better system is known to exist. There are degrees of accuracy, Doug, and as our ability to perceive, digest, understand, comprehend and predict the truth, reality, the universe, or whatever you want to call it, we seem to be moving farther and farther away from supernatural explanations. We have no reason to suspect that a more developed mind would turn back and embrace superstition.
Also, just so you know, there's no guarantee that humans will be any smarter, biologically speaking, in the future. Natural selection and evolution only reward breeding, not intelligence. If anything, we're more likely to backslide as the future approaches. There's also no reason to think we're any more biologically intelligent than our ancestors going back thousands of years. Our knowledge has grown sociologically. It's not that our brains are better at discerning information, it's that we have more information available. Though I really could go for a banana right now.
Seriously, though, you know we didn't evolve from monkeys, right? That's like saying that your cousin is your grandfather. We share an ancestor, monkeys are not our ancestors.