If you were ever a theist...

[MTL]

Your approach is a little unusual, and I'm sorry that I allowed the way you address "God" with capital "G" and "search for Truth" to lead to the presumption that you are decidedly deist.

What I agree thoroughly with is that there is no good point in telling a theist there is no god when your purpose is to change the theist's mind. To argue with them at all is counter-productive, and that's why I'm not sure it's a good idea to attack "God" as they believe it to be either. That won't stop me from doing both when I know I'm dealing with a troll or a person who is simply unreachable, but it's not for their benefit, it's to fight the confusion they may be causing those who are looking on and reading these threads.

The more you attack a believer's creed, the more they tend to double down, throwing back increasingly inane and nasty insults the more you stick around. They are that much personally entangled in the whole scam - that god, no matter what you say and no matter how truly you point out its evil nature, is their personal identity, their beloved parents, their children, their whole community and friends, and quite often it's also their stock in trade. When this is the case for said believer, as it most often is, it may be impossible for them not to take anything you say on their faith ideas as a personal attack, and from that point they won't care how right you are.

My preferred approach, if it's the person I'm addressing who I want to think differently is to put argument aside and just ask questions.

"Why do you believe..." is good for starters. If they care enough to be honest, they will think it over, although this has not been the case with the trolls this past week.

Usually they cannot answer that first  question adequately, or they attempt to substitute an answer to the wrong question. To the robobeliever, "why" means "why I choose to insist (what can't be so must be)".

So I point out the difference between prescriptive and descriptive reasoning, that it must be understood that you may understand what your problems in life are, and you may have a prescription for dealing with them, but what good is that prescription if you don't have a decently descriptive assessment of it? You treat the disease, not the symptom, and their description to explain why we have our social and mental diseases comes from stone tablets and 2000-year-old papyrus etchings by goatherds on hallucinogenic mushrooms and opium poppies!

So why do you think that's better than scientific approaches to "spiritual" health, while I try to dispell their wooful notions that the spiritual and the mental are anything other than synonymous in educated culture.

Well, now here I am at the point of attacking them from a different angle, maybe this too is just a waste of time! But if they will evaluate their own position, I think it's best to ask more questions which would trigger this, and criticize less.

Sorry for the confusion.  I may use a capital G or a lower-case g for the sake of clarity;
god being generally meant as a noun, God being meant more as a the name of a specific entity
...but ultimately I just don't care that much, lol.  Whatever.

And again, I agree pretty much with what you've said, here,
but I should clarify again that I don't really "attack" Theist reasoning, AT ALL,
unless I'm given a real reason to.

A Theist REALLY has to persevere and push me hard, before I will even really engage with them on the subject.
I know most of them mean well, and I don't think combativeness helps my cause.

But those Theists that aggressively seek me out,
to add me to their collection of souls,
...like a child who seeks to add my light to their jar full of imprisoned fireflies...
it is those with whom I will engage,
and only if they pursue me hard enough.

They won't experience a strike from me, unless they pursue me, first.

In that sense, I confess that I am a bit like the Angler Fish:



But even that analogy conveys far more aggressiveness than I actually utilize.

Like you, I prefer the questioning approach.

(but my point is that I won't even begin a line of questioning unless I am first questioned,
and I must first be questioned rather relentlessly, at that).

There are, as you have observed, different types of Theists...and I don't refer to their differences of dogma;
but rather the type of mind and attitude that they have.

As you said, some, when engaged, will only double-down,
and they are too far gone, IMO...they are a waste of time.
They don't really belong to their Religion because they want Truth,
They just want Religion.

But the Theist who sincerely seeks Truth, and is merely misguided into following Religion,
they ARE worth the time...very much so;
and I don't seek to destroy their Faith in God,
but rather encourage them to realize that Religion is a red herring.

And it is with such a Theist that my "unusual approach" rears its head:

It is then that you'll hear me talk like a Theist,
as if I believe in God, making Biblical references, etc,

because with such a Theist,
my tack is not to destroy their Faith at all,
but rather awaken to the reality that their Religion is superfluous to their Faith and even a danger to it.

I think it requires a HUGE investment of energy to endeavor to convert ANY Theist to Atheism,
and with a very low likelihood of desired result,

but it seems like a far more realistic and practical objective to illustrate to a relatively open-minded Theist
the option of Deism, which is far less harmful than their Religion, is.

I consider such Theists to be worth the time,
because if I can eventually shift their thinking toward Deism,
they may do the same to other Theists of their acquaintance;
Deism has more of a chance to "go viral" amongst a circle of Theists.