As much as I do enjoy laughing about the ridiculous nature of some religious beliefs, when it comes to interacting with theists in one to one debates or on online forums I'm often wary of doing so.

While ridiculing the religious is useful in live debates, very often online I see it done and yet it only seems to serve to agitate them and drive them further into belief.


While it's very condescending something I always think about when talking to the religious of any flavor is the allegory of the cave, a good explanation of which can be found linked here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWlUKJIMge4

In the same way when a child is learning to write mocking them for their poor attempts at pencil control will likely discourage them, I often fear that jibes about religious leaders being pedophiles or Mormon Space Harems which, while entirely true, might discourage the budding attempt at reasoning from a theist and drive them deeper back into the trench.

I suppose what I am asking is this, what approach do you think works best when trying to debate theists. As much amusement as I do derive from watching old tapes of Christopher Hitchen's shred the opposition I think it more likely he may have made some of the theistic viewers more radical than persuaded them. Someone like say Dennett on the other hand while not as charismatic as Chris takes more of a softly, softly approach; chipping away at the roadblock rather than trying to smash the whole religious paradigm at once. I don't know why but that just seems to make it stronger for some strange reason.

I tend to take more to the latter outside of organized live debates, but I'd be interested to know how other non-believers do it. The main problem I find is that it tends to make pretty stale reading for anyone else reading the thread other than the target, maybe there's a way to make it more interesting.  

I agree completely, and I've brought this point up before, though, admittedly, not as eloquently as you have.

You should check out Anthony Magnabosco on youtube. Street Epistemology is an interest way of making theists question their beliefs.

I'll stop ridiculing the afflicted when they stop saying ridiculous things.  I honestly don;t know that anything "works" in a debate with a True Believer™.  If that were so, whenceforth cometh our regulars? 

(September 19, 2016 at 11:55 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'll stop ridiculing the afflicted when they stop saying ridiculous things.  I honestly don;t know that anything "works" in a debate with a True Believer™.  If that were so, whenceforth cometh our regulars? 

Fuck the True Believers. I'm more concerned with the more sensible ones.

I'll add that I only ever 'debate' the faithful outside this place when they shove it under my nose. I don't bother looking for them and actually prefer to give them a wide berth, lest the crazy rubs off on me - a horrifying image, I apologise.

(September 19, 2016 at 11:57 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Fuck the True Believers. I'm more concerned with the more sensible ones.

Good luck finding one of those. The measure of how sensible a person is almost invariably falls along a line of how little they believe in what they profess to believe.

Peter Boghossian advocates taking one simple element of a belief system, and questioning that with the believer.  (I think that "Street Epistemology" may have been coined by him.  Anyone know?)   So that you aren't attacking an actual belief or faith, but just questioning one illogical element.  He said that people deserve dignity, but ideas do not.  I don't have his book with me, I can post an example later this evening.

What would be your own example of such an element.  One which could be discussed without the believer feeling (or recognizing) the threat to their beliefs?

(September 19, 2016 at 11:57 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(September 19, 2016 at 11:55 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'll stop ridiculing the afflicted when they stop saying ridiculous things.  I honestly don;t know that anything "works" in a debate with a True Believer™.  If that were so, whenceforth cometh our regulars? 

Fuck the True Believers. I'm more concerned with the more sensible ones.

Wait.  You're suggesting there are sensible ones?

(September 19, 2016 at 11:45 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: I agree completely, and I've brought this point up before, though, admittedly, not as eloquently as you have.

You should check out Anthony Magnabosco on youtube. Street Epistemology is an interest way of making theists question their beliefs.

Thank you for the suggestion, he is proving to be quite interesting to watch so far.

(September 19, 2016 at 12:39 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What would be your own example of such an element.  One which could be discussed without the believer feeling (or recognizing) the threat to their beliefs?

Well, myself personally I've been having a discussion recently with an Evangelical who insists morality is objective.

Rather than just point at the OT then the NT and show that that particular deity apparently changes his mind about what is good or not at the drop of a hat, we've been talking about a case they're currently looking at as part of something to do with their study in Criminology, comparing how she feels disgust at a historical case of a woman being raped and then beaten to death by her spouse which was viewed rather indifferently at the time. She was a bad wife after all, she scolded her husband after coming in late from the tavern

We seem to have now established that how she interprets obedience and submission to ones spouse is very different to how believers of this poor womans day interpreted it. It's a slow process but we've managed to get from "They weren't really believers" to "They interpreted the scriptures incorrectly". A small move yes, but crucially she has acknowledged they were just as devout believers as her and thought the decision was right and just. I've got confidence from here we can go to "What if I'm interpreting this incorrectly?" and potentially slowly working towards examining if her God concept can be considered morally objective by her own conception of its standard.

It's slow, but for starting off as a young earth creationist six months ago I have to say I think we're making rather good progress I actually think in some ways it's easier to work with fundies, since their beliefs usually aren't as sophisticated. I've noticed sects with an academic tradition like Buddhists and Catholics will deflect questions on the basis that someone better qualified than them supports a theory ("Dr. X is so smart and believes this, I trust them") whereas non-denominational ones generally don't have an appeal to figures like that, perhaps an exception more recently to some Baptists who even then are a bit weaker than High Anglicans who can whip out High Church Psuedo-Aristotolian arguments.