Long term advice when debating theists.

[Brian37]

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.

Ugggggg I really do not know how many times I can say no one is advocating either politeness all the time or cussing all the time. IT DEPENDS.

I'm not talking about every religious person. I am talking about humans in general setting up taboos to avoid getting their egos bruised. I am also talking about the well intended left who thinks protecting multiculturalism involves coddling the insecurities of the zealots and bigots. 

IT DEPENDS on who, where what and context of situation. 

I think anyone who is more concerned with getting offended than they are with actual real oppressive laws and real violence done in the name of religion, they need to get their priorities in order. Only an idiot would think getting offended is worse than being murdered because you offended someone.

IT DEPENDS on the context of who I am talking to, where I am doing it, and the situation I am involved in in that moment.

[Dystopia]

Offense is different from pointless insult. Telling someone they are dumb, idiots etc just because they believe in god will not lead the debate anywhere. I support free speech, and freedom to offend - But people can be offended at anything. However, if you do speak your opinion you are responsible to provide proof and explain it clearly, and you should also listen to people who think differently.

Using the example of killing in the name of religion - A month ago I read a study about it and for the most part killing in the name of religion is mostly influenced by nurturing and outside variables - The only exceptions are the big three monotheisms, those are the religions that drive people to kill more in the name of religion and sometimes it is even the only cause. Even so, I don't think you can kill solely in the name of religion and isolate the environment and circumstances. I gave the example a few days ago - It isn't a coincidence some environments create more Jihadists than others

[Brian37]

Offense is different from pointless insult. Telling someone they are dumb, idiots etc just because they believe in god will not lead the debate anywhere. I support free speech, and freedom to offend - But people can be offended at anything. However, if you do speak your opinion you are responsible to provide proof and explain it clearly, and you should also listen to people who think differently.

Using the example of killing in the name of religion - A month ago I read a study about it and for the most part killing in the name of religion is mostly influenced by nurturing and outside variables - The only exceptions are the big three monotheisms, those are the religions that drive people to kill more in the name of religion and sometimes it is even the only cause. Even so, I don't think you can kill solely in the name of religion and isolate the environment and circumstances. I gave the example a few days ago - It isn't a coincidence some environments create more Jihadists than others

Once again, you are responding with answers to arguments I am not making.

I am speaking in general, I am not laying down absolutes. IT DEPENDS.You cannot slap blanket solutions onto every situation.

[Whateverist]

My advice is to find a more interesting hobby than debating theists. Consider the audience. What could you possibly hope to get from the exchange?

[Brian37]

My advice is to find a more interesting hobby than debating theists.  Consider the audience.  What could you possibly hope to get from the exchange?

Argggggggg once again,

You don't always converse with theists to deconvert them. It also beneficial in a couple other ways.

1. Sharpens your awareness long term of the different ways theists can rearrange words and understand it still boils down to the same argument.

2. Bystanders view it and get to see the arguments of other atheists and learn from it. 

It isn't just about them. Sometimes you can make arguments to a theist and never talk to them again only to find out months or years later that because of what you said along with others that they run into since, caused them to rethink and leave.

It isn't about a magic argument that gets them on the spot and it also isn't just about them,

I can tell you my long term de conversion took me almost  a decade and the person who got that ball rolling I will never know that one conversation got me thinking. And it took tons of reading other atheists arguments, some polite and some blasphemous when I finally got online in 01, up until today that shaped my views.

It is never one person or one page or one book or being polite all the time or being blunt all the time.

And what is wrong with posting online every day? Some people don't have billions of dollars to have a voice.

[Whateverist]

I didn't say you were in it to de-convert anyone. I'm just expressing my disinterest in debate per se, and debating xtians in particular. But plenty of people are into it. Carry on.

---

I can tell you my long term de conversion took me almost  a decade and the person who got that ball rolling I will never know that one conversation got me thinking. And it took tons of reading other atheists arguments, some polite and some blasphemous when I finally got online in 01, up until today that shaped my views.

Sounds like a narrow escape. I think I get it. If I had gone through all of that I would probably be more interested in helping others get out too.

[Brian37]

I didn't say you were in it to de-convert anyone.  I'm just expressing my disinterest in debate per se, and debating xtians in particular.  But plenty of people are into it.  Carry on.

---

I can tell you my long term de conversion took me almost  a decade and the person who got that ball rolling I will never know that one conversation got me thinking. And it took tons of reading other atheists arguments, some polite and some blasphemous when I finally got online in 01, up until today that shaped my views.

Sounds like a narrow escape.  I think I get it.  If I had gone through all of that I would probably be more interested in helping others get out too.

Fair enough.

Like I said, I think many in my experience over the years don't consider what goes on outside their posts. I had lots of influences that built up over time and many of those people will never no how they helped me. Some of it was seeing the refusal to play nice with theists that also helped me raise my voice. No you don't have to be blunt every context, but if it helps another atheist say "Hey I don't have to put up with this shit", that helps too.

[henryp]

I've always thought the science/origin argument that usually results from the debate is a goofy one to partake in for the Atheist.  Because the atheist flat out doesn't know what happened, and the idea of something creating the universe just isn't absurd enough.  Similarly the idea that there is some order and purpose to the universe is also not that absurd.  
The harebrain schemes attached to said creator, however, with all the heaven/hell stuff just doesn't make any sense.  It doesn't make sense in so many ways, that it's really indefensible.  I suggest skipping the "How'd we all get here then!?!?!?! " And "Intelligent Design needs an Intelligent Designer!!!" because both of those are really irrelevant to religion, which is about what God wants us to do, not how the universe got here.

You are stuck in your own well intended sense of fairness. 

No credible scientist would or should claim they know everything.

But in the history of claims, past present there is tons humans can throw in the trash can of bad claims and not lose any sleep. 

We no longer think the sun revolves around the earth. We no longer think the heart does the thinking, and humans literally thought it did. We no longer think blessing someone, outside of a hollow formality, that by doing that it will prevent your soul from escaping your body when you sneeze. 

We no longer think Ra controlled the sun. We no longer think Poseidon controlled the oceans. 

We have tons of dead myths of the past that humans no longer subscribe to. We literally know in a scientific sense why an amputee can falsely feel pain from a hand or foot they no longer have.

Scientists currently are not arguing finite or infinite, and either way the top scientists won't claim either. But what science IS pointing to is that none of this requires a cognition. Our cognition is really no different than accepting that it is complex do to long term building natural collections of events, and not a prime mover being a watchmaker at the start. 

What we know so far points to "all this" being a giant weather pattern. It looks like "all this" simply changes states without cognition, and our awareness is simply a blip much like most acorns rot and the adult trees you do end up seeing are the real minority.

I'm not really thinking fairness.  Feeling like you know a god created the universe is pretty dumb, but the natures they have assigned to the God are impossibilities.  

If someone says "I'm psychic!  If you think of a word, I can tell you what number it starts with."  You don't debate them on the existence of psychic powers.  You just point out the indisputable fact words begin with letters and not numbers.

[Brian37]

You are stuck in your own well intended sense of fairness. 

No credible scientist would or should claim they know everything.

But in the history of claims, past present there is tons humans can throw in the trash can of bad claims and not lose any sleep. 

We no longer think the sun revolves around the earth. We no longer think the heart does the thinking, and humans literally thought it did. We no longer think blessing someone, outside of a hollow formality, that by doing that it will prevent your soul from escaping your body when you sneeze. 

We no longer think Ra controlled the sun. We no longer think Poseidon controlled the oceans. 

We have tons of dead myths of the past that humans no longer subscribe to. We literally know in a scientific sense why an amputee can falsely feel pain from a hand or foot they no longer have.

Scientists currently are not arguing finite or infinite, and either way the top scientists won't claim either. But what science IS pointing to is that none of this requires a cognition. Our cognition is really no different than accepting that it is complex do to long term building natural collections of events, and not a prime mover being a watchmaker at the start. 

What we know so far points to "all this" being a giant weather pattern. It looks like "all this" simply changes states without cognition, and our awareness is simply a blip much like most acorns rot and the adult trees you do end up seeing are the real minority.

I'm not really thinking fairness.  Feeling like you know a god created the universe is pretty dumb, but the natures they have assigned to the God are impossibilities.  

If someone says "I'm psychic!  If you think of a word, I can tell you what number it starts with."  You don't debate them on the existence of psychic powers.  You just point out the indisputable fact words begin with letters and not numbers.

Actually do do whatever works and no one tactic will work 100% of the time on everyone. Argue science, argue morality, argue absurdity, argue logic, argue contradictions, both in the library and the boxing ring. One size does not fit all.

[Spooky]

...Come prepared with Crayons and a Juice Box?