Long term advice when debating theists.

[Brian37]

My advice for anyone debating a theist would be to keep in mind that you are very likely not debating the same thing. While you may have an understanding of the rules of rational discourse, not all people subscribe to those laws, and it's a good chance that they may be completely unaware of what constitutes a "good idea" from a "bad idea". In my experience, most theists that I find myself disagreeing with are not willing to place their beliefs under scrutiny. The willingness of a theist to participate in an argument is by no means an indication that they know how to argue properly. It's quite possible that they understand the word "argument" to be something that denotes a negative activity rather than a beneficial one. People who offer what they believe to be "gotcha arguments" are not interested in a mutual exchange of ideas in search of reliability; they are pseudo-intellectuals exercising cognitive defense mechanisms. Engaging in argument with an honest individual can be productive if both sides are truly interested in arriving at a mutual understanding of something reliable. Unfortunately, religious beliefs tend to be unique in the way one comes to have them; they are not founded by way of reason; and if one did not use reason to arrive at a conclusion, reason alone is not enough to persuade one away from it.

It helps a little to talk about what constitutes evidence and rational discourse before getting into the specifics.  Often, once the rules are understood, there is no argument.  The Christian signs off with it's self-evident, or I just know.  

I hate the word "rules" not because in you are incorrect by using that term, you are flat out right!

What I hate about words like "rules" or "evidence" is that humans cant let go of bad claims. It is more important for most humans to protect their social norms than to admit they got it wrong.

[Polaris]

Don't underestimate a theist based off stereotypical notions you have...

[Hatshepsut]

"burning the candle at both ends", ...

Hmm...I can do that without getting out of bed.  

"Debunk science with science" another way of putting it would be...accept[ing] science when they think it works to prop up their own claims, and reject it when it doesn't....and the idiot apologists who use the 2nd law argument are using it to lead you to their god...

Ahhoo...How selective our ears can be when we have lists to tilt in and a dainty lady in the wings....who is really a deity reviewing her Clausius statement of the Second Law in connection with designing a perfect refrigerator. And one can even inject science into religion without invoking a god, if Engineers and Design do get brief mention at the end. See Tomkins on Chimp/Human sequence comparisons at CRS.

It is more important for most humans to protect their social norms than to admit they got it wrong.

True, and now we're in business. There is indeed safety in numbers as one of your earlier posts said. We Americans (if you're in the USA) are 300 million strong and have the happy combination of a firm government and a pluralistic tradition. We no longer think Amun-Re has sex with the king's mother to create a divine ruler, but there's probably a good reason Egyptians thought so. The world was a very dangerous place for them, without police, with threats of foreign invasion, threats of famine and death in childbirth, and little assurance day-to-day civil order would be maintained. They needed a way to cope with all this and on the whole I feel they acquitted themselves very courageously. Like Egyptians, we have the beliefs we can afford to have. I doubt their society had the option of entertaining a freethinking way; dissent was a threat to civil order for them in a way it is not for us.

Earlier peoples didn't make the sharp division between natural and supernatural that we make. And though I'm thoroughly jaded regarding special claims of the religious kind, I'm also sure our secular-religious distinction is as artificial as any other development in human culture, and worth retaining mainly because it produces useful results for us. While the scientific method itself doesn't depend on religion per se, it does encourage a culture of rationality and secular humanism which has its own social norms and can even function somewhat like religions do when it takes off into issues such as cosmic origins and morality.

That's why I've always thought that when debating the religious (thoughtful ones as opposed to nuts), we should acknowledge that the culture of rationality isn't doing a good job of meeting social, psychological, and existential needs for many people. Otherwise all these religions should wilt as for the most part they can't force their memberships to stay. Theism comes in many flavors but it's a mistake to presume dogma at first blush. Even Christianity displays astonishing diversity of opinion, with people changing affiliations as they search for "church homes" that suit them. Lots of religious are rational enough to work in the sciences and well aware of the arguments deployed against theistic belief.

If the goal is to "convert" them, it is necessary to convince them that believing the cosmos is a giant weather pattern makes more sense than holding some alternative belief. After all, we don't even have precise definitions for what we mean by the terms cognition, intelligence, and purpose, and can hardly expect we've heard the last word on that matter. Sometimes getting it right just isn't that important, especially when it comes to ultimate questions on the nature of reality.

[The Reality Salesman01]

I hate the word "rules" not because in you are incorrect by using that term, you are flat out right!

What I hate about words like "rules" or "evidence" is that humans cant let go of bad claims. It is more important for most humans to protect their social norms than to admit they got it wrong.

Within the realm of rational discourse and intellectual honesty, "protecting social norms" is not a priority and it is against the rules to place significance on it over that which is most likely true. Your frustration is understandable, but I don't expect that you'd be as bothered by an White English speaking American who cannot translate a Chinese Restaurant menu from Mandarin to Latin.  Sometimes the problem isn't with the material, it's a students inability to properly comprehend it. Just take a deep breath.

---

It helps a little to talk about what constitutes evidence and rational discourse before getting into the specifics.  Often, once the rules are understood, there is no argument.  The Christian signs off with it's self-evident, or I just know.  

I hate the word "rules" not because in you are incorrect by using that term, you are flat out right!

What I hate about words like "rules" or "evidence" is that humans cant let go of bad claims. It is more important for most humans to protect their social norms than to admit they got it wrong.

Don't underestimate a theist based off stereotypical notions you have...

...underestimate? When you go to the grocery store, and you see an object in the produce section next to oranges that resonates with you to be object of "Apple", do you assume it is an apple simply because it happens to bare the likeness in every regard, or do you anticipate it to be made of wax since there are actually some wax apples that are in existence? 

I don't know you, or your views, but I imagine that you think of yourself as a more sophisticated Christian. And that may be the case. And while that may mean something to you while being compared to other Christians who subscribe to more fantastical delusions, to me, that makes you the equivalent of the tallest midget or the smartest retard. 

If you happen to be the exceptional Christian who is capable of making a rational argument for the existence of a god, then demonstrate it. But don't play coy with vague statements that shift the burden of stupidity on everyone else that attends your church...

Also, welcome! 

[Goon]

I got a simple way of confusing Christians/other religious schmucks..
Just ask if him/her/it not needing a beginning is being intellectually honest. If we live in the here and now, why isn't that as real as life can be? If your god is the omnipotent one of the world, how did he become that? Did he win the God of Eternity Lottery? Use your head, Schmucks.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Wrong thread

[Brian37]

"burning the candle at both ends", ...

Hmm...I can do that without getting out of bed.  

"Debunk science with science" another way of putting it would be...accept[ing] science when they think it works to prop up their own claims, and reject it when it doesn't....and the idiot apologists who use the 2nd law argument are using it to lead you to their god...

Ahhoo...How selective our ears can be when we have lists to tilt in and a dainty lady in the wings....who is really a deity reviewing her Clausius statement of the Second Law in connection with designing a perfect refrigerator. And one can even inject science into religion without invoking a god, if Engineers and Design do get brief mention at the end. See Tomkins on Chimp/Human sequence comparisons at CRS.

It is more important for most humans to protect their social norms than to admit they got it wrong.

True, and now we're in business. There is indeed safety in numbers as one of your earlier posts said. We Americans (if you're in the USA) are 300 million strong and have the happy combination of a firm government and a pluralistic tradition. We no longer think Amun-Re has sex with the king's mother to create a divine ruler, but there's probably a good reason Egyptians thought so. The world was a very dangerous place for them, without police, with threats of foreign invasion, threats of famine and death in childbirth, and little assurance day-to-day civil order would be maintained. They needed a way to cope with all this and on the whole I feel they acquitted themselves very courageously. Like Egyptians, we have the beliefs we can afford to have. I doubt their society had the option of entertaining a freethinking way; dissent was a threat to civil order for them in a way it is not for us.

Earlier peoples didn't make the sharp division between natural and supernatural that we make. And though I'm thoroughly jaded regarding special claims of the religious kind, I'm also sure our secular-religious distinction is as artificial as any other development in human culture, and worth retaining mainly because it produces useful results for us. While the scientific method itself doesn't depend on religion per se, it does encourage a culture of rationality and secular humanism which has its own social norms and can even function somewhat like religions do when it takes off into issues such as cosmic origins and morality.

That's why I've always thought that when debating the religious (thoughtful ones as opposed to nuts), we should acknowledge that the culture of rationality isn't doing a good job of meeting social, psychological, and existential needs for many people. Otherwise all these religions should wilt as for the most part they can't force their memberships to stay. Theism comes in many flavors but it's a mistake to presume dogma at first blush. Even Christianity displays astonishing diversity of opinion, with people changing affiliations as they search for "church homes" that suit them. Lots of religious are rational enough to work in the sciences and well aware of the arguments deployed against theistic belief.

If the goal is to "convert" them, it is necessary to convince them that believing the cosmos is a giant weather pattern makes more sense than holding some alternative belief. After all, we don't even have precise definitions for what we mean by the terms cognition, intelligence, and purpose, and can hardly expect we've heard the last word on that matter. Sometimes getting it right just isn't that important, especially when it comes to ultimate questions on the nature of reality.

They needed a way to cope with all this

NO that is not the way to justify clinging to a claim or idea. Gap filling having a real effect of creating group survival is still not an excuse to cling to old ideas. If it were the Dark Ages would be justified, and Islam's treatment of women and non Muslims would be justified.

Saying people create placebos as a coping mechanism only means that it happens. Where progress happens in our species is the good side of humanity's capabilities when we question those social norms.

---

If the goal is to "convert" them, it is necessary to convince them that believing the cosmos is a giant weather pattern makes more sense than holding some alternative belief. After all, we don't even have precise definitions for what we mean by the terms cognition, intelligence, and purpose, and can hardly expect we've heard the last word on that matter. Sometimes getting it right just isn't that important, especially when it comes to ultimate questions on the nature of reality.

You will not find any sane scientist who claims to know it all. But that does not mean we need to cling to old ideas. Religions are a result of humans flawed perceptions. It isn't that you can create a godless utopia. It is simply saying religion is only given the human right to make the claim. It should not however be free from scrutiny or blasphemy.

---

"Convert" is a word I am growing to hate. As an atheist, I am not "recruiting" anyone. "Convert" is a religious word. If humans want to find facts, those are not defended by a mere act of marketing. You don't convince humans gravity is real by marketing it. You don't convince people that evolution is fact through mere marketing.

"Convert" is the language religion uses and atheists don't need to market like a club. "Convince" I like much better. And if we want to convince believers they don't need their old myths and clubs facts are the best way to do that.

[*Deidre*]

I mean this in the best way possible, but I was once a theist, and if you think that a theist is going to magically drop everything, and follow your way of thinking, it won't happen. Debating theists is fine, if you recognize that nothing you say is going to change their stance. However, you may plant seeds that grow at some future point, but even then, people abandon their spiritual and/or religious beliefs when they realize the falsehoods associated with them. And it's often not an easy departure, because much of faith is an emotionally charged 'feeling.'

A theist will always appear like he/she isn't debating 'fairly' because they are arguing from a point of faith, while an atheist is arguing from a point of objective truth.

[robvalue]

I suppose the most frustrating part is when the theist is debating dishonestly, you clearly point out the dishonesty, and they continue regardless. I don't mean appealing to faith, I mean relying on logical fallacies, emotional manipulation and semantic games. I understand someone may not be familiar with logical fallacies at first, of course. But it's pretty clear some people simply don't care. We've pointed them out endlessly on this forum, and the same people keep using the same broken arguments.

I don't expect anyone to drop their beliefs just because of a chat with me, I agree that is a ridiculous expectation. But I hope I give them some things to go away and think about at least.

[Dystopia]

Something important is to not underestimate... Really, sometimes I bump into some really ignorant religious people, but you may be surprised when someone who knows a lot about philosophy and science genuinely thinks a god exists and creates a more complex version of the cosmological argument that is not easy to debunk at first glance.

I try to keep personal insults out of debate with theists because I think it only creates antagonism between both groups. Generally spotting fallacies is not hard. When the theist is religious it is an easier task because you can simply ask the person why she/he doesn't believe in thor, zeus or hades instead. But when the theist is a liberal one, or a deist, or a pantheist, it is a bit more complicated and some arguments are unpredictable - Not to mention that as hard as it is to admit some atheist arguments do contain fallacies, though not enough to discredit atheism.