Conversing with people you disagree with

[ReadAndConsider]

Religion is becoming an increasingly important aspect of politics. The religious beliefs of people have always directed political outcomes, but there is a new emphasis on placing one's beliefs at the forefront of political action. This goes for both atheists and theists. As a result, new arguments, conversations, and legislative bills are causing increased conflict.

I'm writing this post as a guide to approaching conversations with others of different beliefs, as the norms of interaction seem to be ineffective at best, and often have a polarizing effect. I have been on both of the far ends of the theist-atheist spectrum over the course of my life, and have discussed and argued about religion for years in person, through video chat, and through writing. This post represents "Best practices" for engagement by both sides, though the voice will often be from an atheist's perspective.


1) The most important thing to do when engaging is to focus on what the other person fears - not simply what they feel strongly about or are prepared the most/least to argue. In my experience, theists are often afraid of being dismissed, relegated to silent corners, and persecuted - both in the immediate, and by society at a whole in the future. Atheists are most afraid of finding out that they have the facts wrong, that they can't come up with answers, and that their general anxiety about some topics might indicate that they are wrong about matters of life-changing importance.

Very few theists I've met feel comfortable to the point that they're unconcerned with the symbols and words of their religion disappearing from the public eye. Those who are tend to have had a very secular upbringing with personal religious observance.

Very few atheists I've met feel comfortable to the point that they don't feel a need to know where the universe came from and aren't occasionally worried about something happening to them after death. Those who are tend to have always been surrounded by an atheistic worldview.

2) You must be willing to admit your own fears in order for the door to real conversation to open. If you do not have any fears related to the topic at large, you must at least be able to demonstrate that you can understand those fears. Few people will ever be convinced by someone that they feel is either too arrogant or too stupid to understand the fears associated with the topic.

3) Stick to what the other person believes. Arguing against an atheist by bringing up infamous atheists or things other atheists have said will be ineffective and upsetting. The same goes for arguing against a theist by bringing up infamous theists or things that other theists believe. Common errors of this type include bringing up intelligent design, the origin of the universe, the bible, and abortion.

Note about the bible: It seems obvious to many atheists that the bible should be the primary object to attack - especially if a theist references it. This is incorrect. What matters is what the theist believes to be the case - regardless of the source. Even if you show that the construction of the documents that were later collected into what is called "the bible" provides many problematic issues for a theist, the theist's beliefs might still remain - and you'll have wasted a lot of time.

When a theist asks for someone to disprove the bible, they're often really asking for reasons why their beliefs should be shaken. Theistic beliefs really aren't grounded in the bible itself - it's more of a symbol of their web of beliefs. The theist might even believe that the bible is really the key; but I have never met a theist whose mind was changed once s/he abandoned the bible as a source for a belief. Often, something else shakes the person's sense of certainty, and their own research afterward leads them to reject the bible as a source of information.

Note about abortion: Atheists' views on abortion span the full spectrum from "all life is sacred" to "all life can be thrown away". Moreover, the position of "all life can be thrown away" is often thought by theists to be a sort of checkmate - proof of atheists' immorality and idiotic beliefs. However, there are many atheists who provide detailed and convincing arguments that show such expendability to be part of a larger, highly ethical worldview.

4) Focus on the big questions first. It is tempting to get into the details of arguments - especially when you are highly informed about a subject - whether scientific or doctrinal in nature. However, the most convincing arguments are also the most easy to understand. They are more difficult to refute, and easier to remember. However, simple arguments that do not focus on precise issues should be avoided.

For example:

Avoid: The world is so complex and beautiful that there must be a creator. Can't you feel it?
- This has many variations and uses many examples, but is a very broad argument that quickly falls into arguing over highly specific information. Moreover, it's a claim about a "creator" - which is better served by an argument about the existence of the universe itself. Still more importantly, the argument appeals to emotion and sense of wonder, rather than logic.

Avoid: There is too much evil in the world. Doesn't it feel wrong that a god would let that happen?
- Again, there are many variations on this, and the argument ultimately boils down to arguing over details about how and why religious entities operate. It appears to appeal to logic, but too much information is missing to make a judgment. Ultimately, this is another emotional argument.

Use: It doesn't make sense to me that the universe simply came into being. Something had to start the process and organize it, or else I don't understand why the universe doesn't just stop existing and why there are scientific laws.
- This addresses one topic very clearly - the origin and organization of the universe. It seems that there should be a logical answer to this question.

Use: It doesn't make sense to me that good people live in a world so full of hardship even though they seek guidance. If there is a god and it wants people to be happy and praise it, why do good people's prayers go unanswered, and why isn't there more obvious guidance on how we should live our lives? It doesn't make sense to me that god expects people to wait for signs, and then have to interpret them. I wouldn't do that to my kid.
- This addresses one topic very clearly - and isn't set on a broad issue like the origin (or degree of) evil in the universe. It seems that there should be a logical answer to this question.

Ultimately, I went from wanting to be a minister to being an atheist because the questions I couldn't answer related to atheism were scientific in nature, and the questions I couldn't answer related to god were personal in nature. Science may yet have answers for questions about the universe in the future - but I went for years without answers about my relationship with god. And if god wanted a relationship (if god is a thinking, acting thing at all), then it only made sense that I should have received some answers.

In the end, I couldn't go on believing something that I not only had no explanation or evidence for, but I had every reason to think shouldn't be the case - a human-like god that didn't communicate. After I discarded that belief, I realized that there wasn't really a reason to believe anything related to religion.

5) Let the other person have their personal reaction to arguments without judgment. A theist may be presented with many compelling arguments, but still believe what they believe. Religious beliefs are not just a matter of facts - they are a matter of psychological programming, social acceptance, and much more. Beliefs are very hard to change, much less discard. There was nothing that anyone could have done to make me change my mind when I was a theist - becoming an atheist was a gradual and personal process that I experienced. There are atheists who have experiences that lead them to become theists - and no arguments can speed up or slow down their path.

6) Most importantly, show constant respect for the person that you do not understand and do not agree with. Insults, dismissals, badgering, and pressuring all shut down conversations and the process of self-discovery. You may be tempted to push someone because you feel that their beliefs are harming them, that they could have a better life with different beliefs, or that their beliefs are harming others - but any negative action will only create new problems. The more pressuring and attacking you do, the more conversations become arguments, and the more that arguments start to feel like team sports - and team sports only result in injuries and polarization.

[Angrboda]

Thanks, dad. Can I borrow the car?

[KichigaiNeko]

TLDR.... Talk to the hand

[Rayaan]

and the more that arguments start to feel like team sports - and team sports only result in injuries and polarization.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I don't have to respect anyone's beliefs.

[KichigaiNeko]

[Rayaan]

5) Let the other person have their personal reaction to arguments without judgment. A theist may be presented with many compelling arguments, but still believe what they believe. Religious beliefs are not just a matter of facts - they are a matter of psychological programming, social acceptance, and much more. Beliefs are very hard to change, much less discard. There was nothing that anyone could have done to make me change my mind when I was a theist - becoming an atheist was a gradual and personal process that I experienced. There are atheists who have experiences that lead them to become theists - and no arguments can speed up or slow down their path.

Generally, I agree with that. Arguments between theists and atheists usually do not change their beliefs about the existence of God, although sometimes they do.

But, then, I was wondering, what is it that still keeps you so enthusiastic about arguing with theists even after doing this for so many years? Is it mainly because you want to change them, because arguing with them gives you a kind of self-satisfaction for logically defeating them, because you want to expand your own knowledge through discussions with them, or what exactly?

I mean, there are many possible reasons for wanting to argue, and different people have different reasons for arguing, so what is yours? You already said that these theist-vs-atheist arguments are pretty much ineffective when it comes to changing their beliefs (about God and religion). So what do you wish to get out of these arguments at the end of the day?

I'm not saying that rational discussions dealing with religious beliefs is a bad thing at all. It certainly is a good thing, in my opinion, but I'm just asking something that I'm curious to know.

And from your experience, did you really find that your own method of arguing/debating - as outlined above - is significantly more effective, or not so much?

[ReadAndConsider]

My primary reason for continuing to argue is to prove a counter-example to the hostile arguments that many theists and atheists expect. When they see that non-aggressive argumentation is possible and get a sense for how to do it, they tend to be less aggressive, more open to discussion, and more likely to try to change the tone of others' arguments - and a change in tone is greatly needed at large right now.

I also believe that the more that anyone talks with others about belief non-aggressively, the more likely it is that they will become an atheist.


I don't have any statistics to run on deconversion, but I can tell you that a lot of thesis and atheists have approached me after non-aggressive conversations to express appreciation and ask further questions. That almost never happened with more common styles of argumentation.