• Eliezer Yudkowsky can isolate magnetic monopoles; he gives them to small orphan children as birthday presents.
• Eliezer Yudkowsky once challenged God to a contest to see who knew the most about physics. Eliezer Yudkowsky won and disproved God.
• Eliezer Yudkowsky once checkmated Kasparov in seven moves — while playing Monopoly.
• At the age of eight, Eliezer Yudkowsky built a fully functional AGI out of LEGO.
• Eliezer Yudkowsky never includes error estimates in his experimental write ups: his results are always exact by definition.
• When foxes have a good idea they say it is "as cunning as Eliezer Yudkowsky".
• Apple pays Eliezer Yudkowsky 99 cents every time he listens to a song.
• Eliezer Yudkowsky can kill two stones with one bird.
• When the Boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks his closet for Eliezer Yudkowsky.
• Eliezer Yudkowsky can derive the Axiom of Choice from ZF Set Theory.

I feel like I might have seen this game on Overcoming Bias before, but I can't find it there

The game is familiar to me from Yes, Minister, a TV programme which was an expert satire on British politics. Bernard Woolley, a senior civil servant, would refer to these as "irregular verbs". From the quotes page at IMDB: "That's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential security briefings. You leak. He has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act. "

More irregular verbs here.

The science of winning arguments is called Rhetoric, and it is one of the Dark Arts. Its study is forbidden to rationalists, and its tomes and treatises are kept under lock and key in a particularly dark corner of the Miskatonic University library. More than this it is not lawful to speak.

I recommend looking at some Aristotle rhetoric and rationalist thinking are in no way divorced from one another. In fact part of being an effective rationalist is to make effective use of rhetoric in your arguments. Without going as far as becoming a sophist.

Now as much as I enjoy Yvain's religion bashing its really out of place and unbecoming of an educated person. Regardless of the my personal beliefs and the fact that I am sure this post will be voted down or deleted your anti-religion arguments are essentially straw-men.

Let's say you approach a theist (let's call him Theo) and say "How can you, a grown man, still believe in something stupid like talking snakes and magic sky kings? Don't you know you people are responsible for the Crusades and the Thirty Years' War and the Spanish Inquisition? You should be ashamed of yourself!"

Let us not forget that many of the great rationalists who's shoulders you stand on, and many scientists who's shoulders you stand on are or were Christians. This argument is fundamentally wrong headed you are claiming for atheists some moral high ground which isn't theirs to claim. Ironically enough you share many of the same values as these Christians who's ideas you spurn.

Then as an aside there is this claim of all the evidence that points to the non-existence of God. The problem is that the statement "God exists" is formally unprovable. There is no mathematical proof that God does not exist. You can argue that the evidence points in that direction but straw-men of the opposing position does not do anyone any favors and does not make your case.

If you wonder why atheists like yourself have trouble convincing religious people its because you start the argument assuming your opponent is an idiot and that understanding their world view is irrelevant. Unfortunately this is not the case the most effective way to deal with religious arguments is to debunk them from the inside out. This requires and necessitates you have a clear and accurate understanding of the opposing position. It also means that you don't assume you opponent is an idiot.

I'll be honest -- my life has taken a sharp downturn since I deconverted. My theist girlfriend, with whom I was very much in love, couldn't deal with this change in me, and after six months of painful vacillation, she left me for a co-worker. That was another six months ago, and I have been heartbroken, miserable, unfocused, and extremely ineffective since.

Perhaps this is an example of the valley of bad rationality of which PhilGoetz spoke, but I still hold my current situation higher in my preference ranking than happiness with false beliefs.