Reductio ad Absurdum: How to most efficently communicate with theists
September 19, 2016 at 11:39 am
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.
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.
