I think I have "Dillahunty Syndrome"

[Gambit]

These are the same arguments I see time and time again from atheists saying they're bored and frustrated with theists. I'm going to have to step back from arguing with atheists over their boredom, it feels like I'm using the same arguments over and over.

"You're not bored, you really are a grumpy bastard."
"You won't stop arguing with theists, you get a sadistic kick out of it."
"You won't stop banging your head against a brick wall, that serves your masochistic side."

[Angrboda]

Sorry for joining in a little late, but I think it's absolutely crucial that when one feels like responding to a theist's argument, one has to make it count. I say this from personal experience. If it weren't for those people on AF.com that persisted with constructive arguments that made me think I could very well still be a Christian and thinking all atheists are angry and arrogant.

Another reason why it's important to always give it 110% when one responds is that for some people the argument that has been presented might be avoided initially, but it will lurk at the back of their heads whether they like that or not. Again, I speak from personal experience. There were arguments that I would convince myself were flawed or I had answered fully, but at the end of the day it would still make me think harder even though I didn't like to admit it.

All I can say is that every person is worth it. You don't know where they're at or how much they've looked into things. So if you want to engage in debate there's more than enough reasons to do it properly.

These are just quantum fluctuations. You can identify one and think it meaningful, but the statistical distribution of all of them is essentially random. But I get that you like to believe your actions have meaning. Just don't mistake that belief for truth if it is not in fact true.

[FallentoReason]

Sorry for joining in a little late, but I think it's absolutely crucial that when one feels like responding to a theist's argument, one has to make it count. I say this from personal experience. If it weren't for those people on AF.com that persisted with constructive arguments that made me think I could very well still be a Christian and thinking all atheists are angry and arrogant.

Another reason why it's important to always give it 110% when one responds is that for some people the argument that has been presented might be avoided initially, but it will lurk at the back of their heads whether they like that or not. Again, I speak from personal experience. There were arguments that I would convince myself were flawed or I had answered fully, but at the end of the day it would still make me think harder even though I didn't like to admit it.

All I can say is that every person is worth it. You don't know where they're at or how much they've looked into things. So if you want to engage in debate there's more than enough reasons to do it properly.

These are just quantum fluctuations. You can identify one and think it meaningful, but the statistical distribution of all of them is essentially random. But I get that you like to believe your actions have meaning. Just don't mistake that belief for truth if it is not in fact true.

But isn't it true that debate will eventually e.g. deconvert someone?

[Napoléon]

But isn't it true that debate will eventually e.g. deconvert someone?

Ummm no?


This is the whole reason I've started to find it a waste of personal time.

[FallentoReason]

But isn't it true that debate will eventually e.g. deconvert someone?

Ummm no?


This is the whole reason I've started to find it a waste of personal time.

Then where does that leave me? Debates do deconvert people. No offense, but it's rather ridiculous to say they're pointless. I mean it's kind of like the general saying of 'if you don't have a shot at it, you'll never know what would of happened'. No debates, no converts for either side... quite obvious really.

[jonb]

What do you expect to say a few words and change a persons world view?

No this forum is for me about a lot more than that!

I want to feel comfortable working though my ideas, I cannot do that in a place where the average view if so far from mine their are so few connections it is impossible to meet. On the other hand I would not like to be in a place where everyone agreed with me, in such a place I could learn nothing. So this forum is open, nice, but that means it is open to those that will abuse it in fact the vast majority of those that come in with different views will only have the intention to upset the apple cart, but if I am not open to be engaged then I am not open at all. Each of us has different levels we will take this too and it is interesting of itself, how one person will say no that is enough for me when another is just starting to get interested.
If you don't want to engage in the fight 'god, no god', There is sill masses to talk about for instance without a god, do we atheists have common values. It is not just about a fight, we atheists each need at least little support, even I do, and I live in the UK where nobody gives a toss what anyone else thinks.

[Napoléon]

Then where does that leave me? Debates do deconvert people. No offense, but it's rather ridiculous to say they're pointless. I mean it's kind of like the general saying of 'if you don't have a shot at it, you'll never know what would of happened'. No debates, no converts for either side... quite obvious really.

When the fuck did I say they were pointless?

This whole thread is about how the same debates become tiresome over time to the individual. That doesn't mean to say they are completely pointless.

Obviously you haven't been reading what I've been saying. Or maybe I've not expressed myself correctly, but I'm pretty sure it's the former.

You asked the question: "But isn't it true that debate will eventually e.g. deconvert someone?"

I answered no. Having a debate is in no way guaranteed to deconvert anyone, no matter how long you debate the subject. I didn't say they don't convert people, but your question seems to assume that eventually people will be deconverted just by having a debate.

How is that wrong?

[Norfolk And Chance]

I guess it's just that when you debate with theists all the time it's easy to forget that many of them may be new to arguments you think are so old, tired and frankly obvious.

I haven't got the same buzz I used to get when debating like when I first joined here if I'm honest. Mainly due to the fact that it just seems a pointless endeavour, and the people you argue against never offer anything new. You find yourself talking about the same old shit as well.

I'm gonna try and take a break from giving a shit if I can for a while. I doubt I will be able to resist though.

Know what you mean. I just want to point and laugh at them rather than debate them.

---

Yeah, this resonates with me. I haven't watched the video, but I understand the sentiment. Obviously I barely ever post here these days, and it's because of these feelings, mainly. The thing I have found most frustrating is the refusal of theists to follow their thought processes through to the conclusion and be honest. So when I ask someone straightforwardly 'Do you think it is right or wrong that gay people should be penalised' or 'Do you think it is right or wrong that I should be punished for eternity simply for not believing' and they dodge around the answer, it annoys me. It further annoys me that they are unwilling to contemplate what their internal conflict might mean.

I've missed your posts man.

---

I did learn many things about Islam which I didn't know before.

Like the bit about it being fucking bullshit?

[FallentoReason]

You asked the question: "But isn't it true that debate will eventually e.g. deconvert someone?"

I answered no. Having a debate is in no way guaranteed to deconvert anyone, no matter how long you debate the subject. I didn't say they don't convert people, but your question seems to assume that eventually people will be deconverted just by having a debate.

Oh ok, we're on the same page then. Sorry, I should have clarified that when I said deconvert someone I meant some individuals but not every individual.

[Napoléon]

Oh ok, we're on the same page then. Sorry, I should have clarified that when I said deconvert someone I meant some individuals but not every individual.

Ah ok, I guess I misunderstood your question then. Shit happens