I've just realised that I can't debate theists

[Faith No More]

I would only debate a theist who was questioning his/her faith, and wanted to see the other side of the debate.

[Napoléon]

To everyone else - do any of you have an extremely short fuse, and are prone to exploding? If so, how do you deal with that?

I guess I do have a short fuse, but I tend to only resort to getting angry in my posts here when

1. The person isn't addressing my points

2. The person is just plain ignorant

3. The person is making up absolute bullshit

4. They are a cunt

If it's not one of those 4 things I think I'll keep a cool head with people. Or at least try to when discussing religion and what not.

However, I tend not to get into the theological discussions at all because frankly, I don't know enough about the bible to try and debate a christian on it.

I find it much easier to prevent them from even letting them assert the bible as evidence in the first place.


As for how I deal with it when I get angry? I guess I don't.

Nothing is more fun to me at times that telling an ignoramus where to stick it.

[Gambit]

Of course if you were able to debate with grace and without resorting to anger or insults, like 'religiards', then you would win the debate by example, rather than words. Whenever I find myself responding in anger, its because I'm focused on proving how right I am, rather than a sincere desire to understand the other person or persuade them for their benefit.

I agree. Anger is often a natural response to challenges to one's own position as well as to propositions that one considers ridiculous. Feeling anger sometimes can't be helped, but to let that anger inform responses in a debate is a sign of poor debating skills in my opinion. Anger fuelled responses in a debate are superfluous at best. In my eyes there's no excuse for unnecessary insults on online forums. Posts can be reviewed and edited. In fact, I came close to making unnecessary slights in the writing of this very post. I just read it over and edited it out because it helps no one.

As for the saying "you can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" - this can't be true. Many atheists are former Christians, Muslims, deists etc. If Christianity (for example) is unreasonable, as many atheists hold it is, then how are Christians reasoned out of it? Reasoning skills are learned over time. Sometimes people are lucky and have a good school or good parents which send their minds in this direction from the get-go. Sometimes people stumble upon it by accident from a position of ignorance, like I did. Expecting to reason people out of their positions in one sitting is a tall order. People take time to process information, particularly when there's an emotional investment. Further, sometimes it is even necessary to teach the very reasoning skills that underpin one's argument before the conclusion is accepted.

I see people become frustrated about people not accepting the evidence of evolution (again, an example) - but perhaps their frustration would turn to understanding if they realised that their opponent places different values on evidence. Perhaps in some cases the problem would be revealed to be that person A is amounting a large pile of evidence, not realising that person B doesn't actually value evidence (or physical evidence). If person A is to establish their case they must first show Person B why evidence (or physical evidence) should be valued, what types are valid and why, which evidence is better than which and why, etc. However, it's often that Person A in this scenario will simply give up and say that Person B is 'wilfully ignorant' or 'stupid' which may not be so - it may be that their differences in values must be resolved before a fruitful discussion on evolution can ensue. A video by Evid3nc3 on youtube about Evidentialism comes to mind.

This is a good video which is somewhat relevant and contains suggestions about managing oneself in a debate:

I think you just gave me the answer I've been looking for. Normally, when theists completely ignore reason and evidence I do get angry but can walk away. However, I have a vested interested in the person who inspired this post, so I can't afford to walk away or leave things as they are. One thing I have never actually considered is whether they place any importance on the evidence presented to them. So, subtlety might be the key here. I'm just going to break down their argument gently until they are actually capable of making informed decisions. I've went over in my mind the debate we were having, and the arguments they made were grounded in fear. I think I first need to take away that fear, before they will even consider listening to what I have to say.

[Tempus]

You probably hate the shit out of me, then.

Nope I think you demonstrated in the preceding paragraph that we agree on major points; such as that many of us on these forums were ignorant once (and in some areas, still are) and we need to appreciate that others mightn't have had access to the same knowledge and experiences that we have. I also agree that people making decisions about something they're ignorant of can be dangerous.

Where I disagree is about anger and its place in a debate. Can you think of one example of where calling someone an idiot / retard / etc enhanced or contributed to a debate? And if it's not enhancing or contributing to the debate then why do it? Clearly if one responds angrily, knowing it will not convince anyone, nor contribute anything meaningful the only reason they can be doing it is for themselves. Also, what of the potential harm it could do? What of other potential contributors to such discussions that instead end up being driven away due such vitriol? Even if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that someone was wilfully ignorant, how does this justify insult? And more importantly, would insult help them? If not, why do it? To hinder them? What need, other than one originating from the insulter, could this possibly fulfil?

I'm not suggesting people simply shouldn't get angry, but I do think words can be easily be chosen (again, particularly online) to prevent or diffuse unnecessary confrontation and personal attacks.

[LastPoet]

As to me is pontless to argue with theists, because most of them are just not able to even consider the possibility of their god not to exist. The reasons for that are well known, indoctrination, almost dramatic events, NDE's, etc. Its up to them to realize and be honest to themselves that god might not exist, but that is such a terrible shake on their reasoning foundations, its almost umbearable. I do not get heated up because of these discussions, only going into them if someone specifies theyr belief is based on 'god'.

The other day, my father in law had a jehova's withness 'pastor' (or whatever they call those) and he was bullshitting him and my wife so I went to my computer and acted like nothing happened, so I overheard:

pastor- "you know mister(my inlaw), it isn't just the bible that proves god"

I- (can't help but facepalm)

pastor- "There are scientific proof of god!"

I- (double facepalm)

pastor- "what about you(me), mister, what's your opinion?

I- "Simple, you are actively lying to these people, but not me: Enumerate your scientific proof for god:

RIDDLE: anyone cares to guess what arguments(hint hint) were those? there were 3

[Gambit]

You probably hate the shit out of me, then.

Nope I think you demonstrated in the preceding paragraph that we agree on major points; such as that many of us on these forums were ignorant once (and in some areas, still are) and we need to appreciate that others mightn't have had access to the same knowledge and experiences that we have. I also agree that people making decisions about something they're ignorant of can be dangerous.

Where I disagree is about anger and its place in a debate. Can you think of one example of where calling someone an idiot / retard / etc enhanced or contributed to a debate? And if it's not enhancing or contributing to the debate then why do it? Clearly if one responds angrily, knowing it will not convince anyone, nor contribute anything meaningful the only reason they can be doing it is for themselves. Also, what of the potential harm it could do? What of other potential contributors to such discussions that instead end up being driven away due such vitriol? Even if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that someone was wilfully ignorant, how does this justify insult? And more importantly, would insult help them? If not, why do it? To hinder them? What need, other than one originating from the insulter, could this possibly fulfil?

I'm not suggesting people simply shouldn't get angry, but I do think words can be easily be chosen (again, particularly online) to prevent or diffuse unnecessary confrontation and personal attacks.

I have to say, I can't argue with that. Dan Savage's recent comments, when christian students walked out of his seminar, are a good example. If he had not called the students "pansy assed", christians would not have had an argument against what he was actually trying to get across. If you look at all the christian websites that responded to the video, they all zero in on that one comment.

Here's the video, in case you have no clue what I'm blabbering on about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs

[Tempus]

I think you just gave me the answer I've been looking for...

---

Normally, when theists completely ignore reason and evidence I do get angry but can walk away. However, I have a vested interested in the person who inspired this post, so I can't afford to walk away or leave things as they are. One thing I have never actually considered is whether they place any importance on the evidence presented to them. So, subtlety might be the key here. I'm just going to break down their argument gently until they are actually capable of making informed decisions. I've went over in my mind the debate we were having, and the arguments they made were grounded in fear. I think I first need to take away that fear, before they will even consider listening to what I have to say.

---

I'm glad something I said was helpful. If you found what I said useful, I'd highly recommend Evid3nc3's deconversion story on youtube. It's a long series of videos but it's thorough, clear and informative, so it's very much worth it. One of the things he covers late in the series is evidentialism which may be a useful starting point for you and your friend, particularly if they don't value physical evidence. He also gets into Biblical history, prayer, morality etc in addition to other things which I can't remember. He's a link to the playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA...ature=plcp

I have to say, I can't argue with that. Dan Savage's recent comments, when christian students walked out of his seminar, are a good example. If he had not called the students "pansy assed", christians would not have had an argument against what he was actually trying to get across. If you look at all the christian websites that responded to the video, they all zero in on that one comment.

Ah, I hadn't watched it until now. It can be tempting to add comments like that. Unfortunately it can take the attention away from the point, which, in this case, was the absurdity of Old Testament law and selective reading of it, and direct it toward (comparative) trivialities such as his choice of words.

[Minimalist]

So, I was debating a christian the other day, and they said something utterly ridiculous - as they are wont to do - and I couldn't contain my temper. This got me to thinking; I've never been able to debate with theists, without losing my temper.

Every time that someone quotes scripture, or uses circular reasoning to support their argument, it really pisses me off to the point where I see red. I'm talking spots before my eyes and veins popping in my neck. Picture stressed Eric; only with a handsome Irish guy as the main character.

Anyway, can anyone give me advice on how to better handle these situations?

Keep screaming at them. They are incapable of learning anyway and you'll feel better.

[Gambit]

I think you just gave me the answer I've been looking for...

---

Normally, when theists completely ignore reason and evidence I do get angry but can walk away. However, I have a vested interested in the person who inspired this post, so I can't afford to walk away or leave things as they are. One thing I have never actually considered is whether they place any importance on the evidence presented to them. So, subtlety might be the key here. I'm just going to break down their argument gently until they are actually capable of making informed decisions. I've went over in my mind the debate we were having, and the arguments they made were grounded in fear. I think I first need to take away that fear, before they will even consider listening to what I have to say.

---

I'm glad something I said was helpful. If you found what I said useful, I'd highly recommend Evid3nc3's deconversion story on youtube. It's a long series of videos but it's thorough, clear and informative, so it's very much worth it. One of the things he covers late in the series is evidentialism which may be a useful starting point for you and your friend, particularly if they don't value physical evidence. He also gets into Biblical history, prayer, morality etc in addition to other things which I can't remember. He's a link to the playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA...ature=plcp

I have to say, I can't argue with that. Dan Savage's recent comments, when christian students walked out of his seminar, are a good example. If he had not called the students "pansy assed", christians would not have had an argument against what he was actually trying to get across. If you look at all the christian websites that responded to the video, they all zero in on that one comment.

Ah, I hadn't watched it until now. It can be tempting to add comments like that. Unfortunately it can take the attention away from the point, which, in this case, was the absurdity of Old Testament law and selective reading of it, and direct it toward (comparative) trivialities such as his choice of words.

Thanks, Tempus, I'm going to watch his videos on marathon.

[downbeatplumb]

Besides which, online, we atheists can hunt in packs.

You distract them and I'll attack from the sides, one of the two atheists they never even knew were there.