Why Richard Dawkins should debate Christians
April 3, 2013 at 5:19 pm
(This post was last modified: April 3, 2013 at 5:23 pm by smax.)
As many of you may be aware, Richard Dawkins has taken the position that it is counter-productive to debate Christians about the validity and merits of their beliefs. His reasoning is simply that the debate itself lends undue credibility to their views, and he compares the merits of the debate to the merits of debating flat earthers about the actual shape and dimensions of the Earth.
I disagree with Dawkins reasoning, and here is why:
While his comparison of flat earthers to Christians is valid, his failure to acknowledge the common perception of the matter is lacking. The vast majority of the world's people agree that the earth is round and spherical. Such is not the case when it comes to god. The majority of the world's people believe in some sort of active god who takes a significant interest in man's struggle and well being. And 33 percent of that population believe in the Christian god, Jehovah (or Yahweh).
For that reason, and that reason alone, the issue is worth arguing.
Perhaps Dawkins isn't the right person to argue the matter for the Atheist side. If so, that's okay. Clearly Dawkins is a highly intelligent individual, but debate is an art, and not everyone is skilled at it.
But Dawkins should not discourage other more skilled debaters from engaging in very meaningful debate over this very important issue. The world needs more rational minds, and we should try and accomplish that by demonstrating the flaws inherent in theistic religion.
With that in mind, Atheist should keep a few things in mind regarding debate with Christians:
#1. Do not agree to take the position of an Atheist, but rather that of a non-theist. While these terms basically mean the same thing, too much of the debate will center around the meaning of Atheism if the debate is billed: Atheist vs. Christian.
You want the focus of the debate to be on the validity of your opponents claims, not vice versa. Which brings us to:
#2. Do not agree to argue the existence of god, but rather the existence of your opponent's god. Arguing against the existence of god leaves far too much room for your opponent to pursuade the audience with unsolved mysteries and mathematical paradoxes. Those things are meaningless to your opponent if he actually faces the challenge of validating his own personal religious claims.
Atheism (or non-theism) does not have all the answers, and doesn't claim to. Religious people make those kinds of arrogant and bold claims. Don't let the audience lose sight of that fact.
#3. Focus the debate on morality. The reason the debate is worth having in the first place is the fact that religious people are constantly trying to force their beliefs and morals on others. For that reason, people need to understand the moral dilemmas and attrocities that Christianity (and religion in general) promote.
Remind the audience that we are all human beings, and that our one clear common goal should be the survival and success of that species.
Humanity will eventually face great opposition to it's existence in the way of natural scientific occurences. Whether that comes in the form of a huge meteor hitting the planet, the sun expanding and exploding, a deadly epidemic of some sort, or another ice age, it is inevitable that something will eventually threaten our existence.
It's time to stop believing in and promoting fairy tales and an imaginary spiritual existence beyond the grave, and start focusing on our own shared humanity and the struggle we face to perserve it.
We have a long way to go, and Christianity is one of the bigger obstacles standing in the way.
I disagree with Dawkins reasoning, and here is why:
While his comparison of flat earthers to Christians is valid, his failure to acknowledge the common perception of the matter is lacking. The vast majority of the world's people agree that the earth is round and spherical. Such is not the case when it comes to god. The majority of the world's people believe in some sort of active god who takes a significant interest in man's struggle and well being. And 33 percent of that population believe in the Christian god, Jehovah (or Yahweh).
For that reason, and that reason alone, the issue is worth arguing.
Perhaps Dawkins isn't the right person to argue the matter for the Atheist side. If so, that's okay. Clearly Dawkins is a highly intelligent individual, but debate is an art, and not everyone is skilled at it.
But Dawkins should not discourage other more skilled debaters from engaging in very meaningful debate over this very important issue. The world needs more rational minds, and we should try and accomplish that by demonstrating the flaws inherent in theistic religion.
With that in mind, Atheist should keep a few things in mind regarding debate with Christians:
#1. Do not agree to take the position of an Atheist, but rather that of a non-theist. While these terms basically mean the same thing, too much of the debate will center around the meaning of Atheism if the debate is billed: Atheist vs. Christian.
You want the focus of the debate to be on the validity of your opponents claims, not vice versa. Which brings us to:
#2. Do not agree to argue the existence of god, but rather the existence of your opponent's god. Arguing against the existence of god leaves far too much room for your opponent to pursuade the audience with unsolved mysteries and mathematical paradoxes. Those things are meaningless to your opponent if he actually faces the challenge of validating his own personal religious claims.
Atheism (or non-theism) does not have all the answers, and doesn't claim to. Religious people make those kinds of arrogant and bold claims. Don't let the audience lose sight of that fact.
#3. Focus the debate on morality. The reason the debate is worth having in the first place is the fact that religious people are constantly trying to force their beliefs and morals on others. For that reason, people need to understand the moral dilemmas and attrocities that Christianity (and religion in general) promote.
Remind the audience that we are all human beings, and that our one clear common goal should be the survival and success of that species.
Humanity will eventually face great opposition to it's existence in the way of natural scientific occurences. Whether that comes in the form of a huge meteor hitting the planet, the sun expanding and exploding, a deadly epidemic of some sort, or another ice age, it is inevitable that something will eventually threaten our existence.
It's time to stop believing in and promoting fairy tales and an imaginary spiritual existence beyond the grave, and start focusing on our own shared humanity and the struggle we face to perserve it.
We have a long way to go, and Christianity is one of the bigger obstacles standing in the way.
![[Image: earthp.jpg]](http://imageshack.us/photos/my-images/209/earthp.jpg/)
![[Image: dcep7c.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i46.tinypic.com%2Fdcep7c.jpg)
egment of the audience erupts in cheer - game, set, match:
