3 Questions For Believers (A work in progress.)

[topher]

So, I've recently been planning a basic strategy to use when debating with theists. There will never be a "one-size fits all" approach, obviously, but I know a lot of people have their own strategies that can engage any average believer. So, I'll run through my strategy, which consists of 3 questions, and I was hoping I could get some feedback from fellow atheists who may have heard good/terrible responses to these questions.

1. Does it matter to you whether or not your beliefs are true?

Basically, do you believe what you do because you think it's true? Or just because it feels good? Is there any amount of evidence that could ever change your mind? What if you knew for a FACT that it wasn't true, would you still cling to the belief out of the comfort it gives you?

2. Do you agree that truth is determined by evidence and observation of facts, and not through any other means?

Pretty basic, just simply; Do you understand how we come to understand something as truth? It's through evidence and evidence alone. We may be wrong about things sometimes, but science remains by far and away the single best method of coming to knowledge.

3. Do you understand that there is no evidence to support the claim that your beliefs are true?

If the first two questions went very quickly, then obviously this one is going to take the largest amount of time to discuss. But it's rewarding if you can trap them in their own mind games. Obviously, they can not answer these questions the way a logical person would. If they care about the truth, then they must acknowledge that they require evidence, not faith. And if they accept that there is no evidence to support their claims, then they can't even explain to themselves why they believe in God.

Any changes I should make before I try these out? How do you guys tend to argue with a believer?

[Jenny A]

Believers in anything, particularly things they have staked real time, money, reputation or anything else of substance on are entrenched. Giving up a business that you're losing money on is hard, just because you've invested in it. If others laughed (the earth is flat, the UFOs have landed, astrology works) it's harder. If your support community is faith dependent (work, political, or religious) it's even harder.

Confronting why they are wrong head on merely entrenches them further. It feels great to prove you're right in this way (I know because I've indulged, and probably will again) but it isn't productive if the goal is to change their mind. Asking how they came to their belief (not how they can prove it is right) is a much more productive question.

Once you have the answer (which is usually habit from childhood, personal revelation, or praying for faith) you need to gently (and I do mean gently) ask if that reason would apply to other areas of inquiry.

Then go away and let them think. Sometimes this actually works.

Mockery and blunt reason don't.

----- I know this is not responsive to your question. But I don't think you will get productive responses. What you will get is the circular arguments of the entrenched.

[fr0d0]

Massive false, even fallacious premise in #2. But you weren't asking me.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Massive false, even fallacious premise in #2. But you weren't asking me.

Back to claiming you have a rational belief supported by top-secret evidence you won't reveal so soon?

[fr0d0]

..........

[Rampant.A.I.]

Still flame baiting rumpy?

You disagree with premise 2, yet can't articulate why.

Beliefs not based on empirically verifiable evidence qualify as truths about reality to you?

Why?

[fr0d0]

You've already told me that I can't articulate why before asking. Null question.

[Rampant.A.I.]

You've already told me that I can't articulate why before asking. Null question.

So you agree that premise 2 is valid, as you have nothing to back up your assertions. Thanks for playing.

Fucking troll.

[fr0d0]

Scientism is a term used to refer to belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints.[1] It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society."

Scientism may refer to science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of two senses:

To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[11] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[12] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case, the term is a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.

British writer and feminist thinker Sara Maitland has called scientism a "myth as pernicious as any sort of fundamentalism."

Source : Wikipedia

[Rampant.A.I.]

Scientism may refer to science applied "in excess". The term scientism can apply in either of two senses:

---

[hide]To indicate the improper usage of science or scientific claims.[11] This usage applies equally in contexts where science might not apply,[12] such as when the topic is perceived to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry, and in contexts where there is insufficient empirical evidence to justify a scientific conclusion. It includes an excessive deference to claims made by scientists or an uncritical eagerness to accept any result described as scientific. In this case, the term is a counterargument to appeals to scientific authority.

---