(February 27, 2015 at 12:04 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: I am not saying that we should never question a person, but the question is to what end? To discredit them? Okay. That could help develop a pattern that you could point out later. But once you have fleshed out whether they were a "true" atheist or not, you are still left with the discussion at hand. You essentially have gotten nowhere.
Now I am all for establishing definitions so the discussion can progress as well. But again, just getting the "neener-neener" of no you weren't an atheist is often petty and sometimes it does nothing to advance the conversation. In fact it is mostly used by the theist as a diversionary tactic to get the conversation off the thing he cannot prove.
But questioning them isn't really about advancing the conversation. It's about understanding the perceptions behind the conversation, and it's about exposing shady debating tactics and flawed attempts to add weight to an argument. It's not about getting your "neener-neener." It's about demonstrating that someone is willing to peddle bullshit for the sake of a cause.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
