Strategies To Keep Them Engaged

[median]

So, this is a topic that I have been kicking around for quite some time now and it may very well be a futile one. However, since I am a former believer/Christian Apologist I wanted to discuss possible strategies for keeping theists engaged in the discussion. Now, before anyone chews me up for this please hear me out. From where I sit (as someone who once vehemently argued/debated for theism/Christianity) it is imperative that the theist hear and/or read (over and over) good critical thinking, along with the exposition of his/her false assumptions and irrational justifications. There is good scientific evidence that repetition of information, at varying times, is effective for change. In other words, once is not enough!

I know arguing with religionists/theists can often be extremely frustrating (They are so stubborn!). However, in my view the "outward" signs, or displays of hostility, stubbornness, repetition, etc are not really the important thing. Exposing bad thinking (and having those mistakes accepted as errors in need of correction) takes TIME. Lots of time. One of the things that got me to begin migrating "out" of fundamentalism was continual outsider assessment from different sources (i.e. - different people exposing my irrational beliefs and how/why they were irrational).

With that said, I would like to discuss "methods of magnetism"! How can we get theists to stick around, rather than run away, after getting a lesson in logic (to put it kindly)? Do you think there are ways to keep them engaged longer? What are some good methods?

[Something completely different]

being nice?











but I dont want tooooo.

[Rayaan]

There is good scientific evidence that repetition of information, at varying times, is effective for change. In other words, once is not enough!

I agree. But still, for some theists, as evident in this forum, even a million times is not enough.

[median]

I think creating an atmosphere that is inviting and "welcome" goes a long way - as opposed to "slamming" all those who disagree or think irrationally. That is close to what I'm driving at. It is something that affected me as a theist (back then). No one wants to be "bombed". However, I am not at all opposed to this when it is called for. I'm just thinking of paths toward effectiveness. Indeed, there are likely many paths toward those lines but I do think there are some general principles that are more effective than others.

[Rayaan]

I think creating an atmosphere that is inviting and "welcome" goes a long way - as opposed to "slamming" all those who disagree or think irrationally.

I agree with that also.

The only thing is that the atmosphere doesn't always stay so inviting and welcoming, as you may expect it to be. There's very likely going to be some bitter arguments between members in this forum every now and then, which is something I do not feel driven away by, personally. That's just the way it is. And some people like that, and some people don't.

[median]

I think creating an atmosphere that is inviting and "welcome" goes a long way - as opposed to "slamming" all those who disagree or think irrationally.

I agree with that also.

The only thing is that the atmosphere doesn't always stay so inviting and welcoming, as you may expect it to be. There's very likely going to be some bitter arguments between members in this forum every now and then, which is something I do not feel driven away by, personally. That's just the way it is. And some people like that, and some people don't.

Ah yes, I am actually fine with heated debates myself. I take part in them all the time. My point is a similar one. We ought to hold initially open arms - where it goes from there is anyone's guess.

Also, a little long suffering can go a long way toward the desired end of rationality.

[FallentoReason]

I think creating an atmosphere that is inviting and "welcome" goes a long way - as opposed to "slamming" all those who disagree or think irrationally. That is close to what I'm driving at. It is something that affected me as a theist (back then). No one wants to be "bombed". However, I am not at all opposed to this when it is called for. I'm just thinking of paths toward effectiveness. Indeed, there are likely many paths toward those lines but I do think there are some general principles that are more effective than others.

Atheists' anger towards me would make me believe just a little bit more because I thought that demonstrated they needed Jeebus even more in their life. I think a friendly environment would go a long way...

[median]

Atheists' anger towards me would make me believe just a little bit more because I thought that demonstrated they needed Jeebus even more in their life. I think a friendly environment would go a long way...

Oh don't get me wrong here. I will light up the fires when necessary and go for the body slam when I have to. I'm just talking about tact and knowing when to use it.

[FallentoReason]

Atheists' anger towards me would make me believe just a little bit more because I thought that demonstrated they needed Jeebus even more in their life. I think a friendly environment would go a long way...

Oh don't get me wrong here. I will light up the fires when necessary and go for the body slam when I have to. I'm just talking about tact and knowing when to use it.

Fair enough. I just don't see any situation where that would yield the best outcome. I'm a big fan of just letting reason speak for itself. That's already enough for them to chew on.

[CapnAwesome]

Meh, whatever. Why do we want to convert people anyway? I don't really care personally. It doesn't matter anyway, whatever we are doing is working because the number of Atheists has doubled in ten years.