Is it worth debating?

[AtheistMessiah]

I've been thinking for a while on this subject: is it worth debating for the non-existance of gods as an atheist?

The atheist and the theist have two very different mind-sets, the theist having some element of 'faith'. I define 'faith' here to be be belief in something with a conviction that is not justified by reason and evidence alone.

I've seen many such discussions ultimitely degrade when the theist jumps to the 'ought to believe' or 'have to have faith' arguments. You see, instrinsically many a theist doesn't see reason as the only source of knowledge, which (natural) atheists do. Arguments can only progress when there is reason involved, and more often than not the belief in gods is NOT a rational one (if it requires faith in any amount).

While belief in gods using reason is possible, it is rare, and often a biased belief (the individual still WANTS to believe). Besides, usually this god is a distant one, such as Einstein's God or Spinoza's God (nature itself).

All that can be shown is that belief in Gods, afterlives, and souls are often faith-based, and therefore not rational. From this point, the theist can hide behind beliefs that knowledge can be obtained in ways other than reason and experience, at which point discussion is impossible.

As long as there is an element of 'faith', discussing the rationality behind belief (evidence, logic) appears mostly pointless as long as it remains underneath it all.

This is the same argument for any naturalist vs. supernaturalist discussion. One believes in a spirit world where reason doesn't make sense, the other does not.

[Acriku]

To give others the enlightenment of doubting your childhood beliefs is good enough of a reason for myself.

[Kalena]

Debats are fun which is why many people do it.

Okay, I'll be serious, but I don't think it isn't worth debating with a theist about atheist beliefs or the other way around. Even though they'll never get on common ground, you both will learn from each other. You know, you may hear about new ideas that you never thought of before (even though you might disagree). And if they get frustrated at the end, well, it was still fun, right? ;D

[pieisgood]

I agree, debates are worth it. I am currently in the email "debate" with a theist, neither of us want to convert the other person but we do ask questions and I have learned a considerable amount about how things are explained.

-pie

[AtheistMessiah]

Good answers. I have simply been frustrated in the past with not knowing how to get others to at least question their beliefs, and realize that they might be wrong. Maybe this should never be the goal of a debate?

Another thing I was trying to get at was that it depends on the person. Some people simply cannot be debated (it's no fun). Rhetoric and such tricks are used too often and there can be no common ground to start from.

[Kalena]

I don't know much about goals of debating since I haven't done much debating before, especially with religion because I don't know much about religion to have a good debate. But when I do debate its usually because I like to give out my opinions and see what that person thinks. Sometimes I would like that person to see my view on things and consider it and understand it. Usually I donft care if they agree with me or not.

[Griffey]

Good question AtheistMessiah...sometimes it does get extremely exhasperating. I think the usefulness of debates often depend on the openmindedness of both parties, the motive (whether conversion is a goal for either party) and the general attitude of either. So, yeah, it does depend on the person. But I also agree with Kalena, it is still worth debating, even if you have to look around for someone who isn't going to revert to a "I'm right because I just am" argument.

[dragonfly]

personally I love debating.I always learn something ...even if it just how another human being thinks.I think its a privelage to be allowed to enter anothers mental state.

I am not fixed in my belief so I like to be challenged and I like to explore different ideas. I guess that could be annoying to others who are more fixed but as long as I can take part in or watch others debate one day I may become more certain. I speak only for myself but I love to be shown to be wrong ( I do adore to be right!) but best of all I like my thoughts to be completely shaken ...that "oh wow !"factor you get from someone elses different perspective.

I agree though that it is tiresome when you know someone begins a debate with a bulldogs death grip on an idea they have chewed to death for years and who would prefer to choke than cough up a fixed belief and swallow someone elses thoughts! (but I guess all of us are guilty of that occassionally)

[Maverick]

AtheistMessiah

I've been thinking for a while on this subject: is it worth debating for the non-existance of gods as an atheist?

I think it can be worthwhile. If not for the debaters, it can at least be worthwhile for the people watching the debate.

AtheistMessiah

I have simply been frustrated in the past with not knowing how to get others to at least question their beliefs, and realize that they might be wrong. Maybe this should never be the goal of a debate?

Actually, I don't think that is a bad goal to try to achieve. If the people of the debate agree to be open to questioning their own positions, then the debate may be worth it both for the debaters and for the audience. I also think a better debate will ultimately come out of such openness.

If you do happen to run into people who, as Griffey said, revert to a "I'm right because I just am" argument, then maybe the only thing that will make the debate worthwhile is a chance to show the audience the narrowmindedness of your opponent.

[coolguy]

Is it worth debating? What a silly silly question!

Of course it is! People say "we like to argue, but we aren't trying to change anyone's views" and that's total bullshit.

The whole purpose of debate, or even the whole purpose of communication is for one person to share his/her view with another person. The whole purpose of sharing one's views with others is to further enhance and define one's own views. For example, I discover something about the world I live in, like if I were a caveman, I might discover that drinking water out of the lake is better than drinking water out of the ocean (because it is all salty) or out of a mud puddle (because it is all muddy) and I want to share my discovery with another person. I could just pull some other cave guy I see drinking out of a mud puddle and drag him over to the tasty lake, and start drinking and smiling, and he would try it and start smiling, thinking (without even knowing these words or their meanings) "This tastes a lot better!" Then he might hug me or shake my hand or show affection or appreciation in some other way. He might even communicate one of his own discoveries to me... might show me a good place to pick berries or something else I just didn't know anything about.

As people discovered more and more things, they needed a way to communicate their discoveries to one another, and communication, written, oral, and via body language "evolved."

Communication has become so evolved that it is used to not only communicate truths, discoveries that we have made, but also to communicate untruths, where the person communicating the untruth, the supposed discovery, benefits by deceiving the other person at that other person's expense. Really complex ideas are conveyed via oral or written communication, and the receiver of such communication is not always rational enough, or informed enough, or knowledgeable enough (and usually not enough of any of the above) to realize the idea being communicated is erroneous, and is unable to refute the idea, and therefore, after being coaxed, he accepts it as "truth" instead of "untruth." This happens to small children... they are told stories about Santa Claus, and they are not knowledgeable enough and logical enough to realize the story is not truth. Since they are told the story by people who rarely deceive them, and whom they are dependent on, whom they love and feel loved by, they accept the untruth (lie, deception) as truth. Likewise, in the exact same way, 99% of all theists accept theist ideas from their family, loved ones, because they are both too uninformed and unable to reason when those ideas are "pushed" onto them. That is the method of indoctrination of choice of the Judeo-Christian (biblical) religions - subjecting people to their ideas before they are rational or knowledgeable enough to make an informed decision. If a car dealer were to go to 4 year olds and tell them how great the Yugo is and that they will get a Yugo when they are 16 if they sign a piece of paper now and work for the car salesmen for the next 12 years, people would object because that is "taking advantage" of a child who is nowhere near capable of making a mental decision of such magnitude. However, the exact same thing is done by religionists, by religious parents, by the "establishment" for thousands of years and it is considered perfectly acceptable. And of course the child is pressured (in infinite ways) his entire life by religionists, his religious parents and the "establishment" to continue accepting the untruth he accepted as truth long, long before he was capable of discerning whether it was true or not.

For the atheist to debate the atheist, both sides are of the mindset that they have a better understanding of what is true... and each tries to impart his knowledge to the other.

In this world, the theist is bombarded from childbirth with erroneous information and only with a great deal of mental effort on his own part and prolonged exposure to true information will he ever refute the erroneous theistic ideas that he has accepted due to a lifetime of being bombarded with those ideas.

So, to argue with theists serves a purpose if you are an atheist. If you are an objectively rational human being and see the pain, suffering and wickedness of life as a bad thing and can see how religion causes irrational thinking in people and subjective analysis of reality, then you see how that irrationality is what leads to the pain and suffering and wickedness around you. Helping theists, or anyone who has profoundly irrational beliefs become more rational, is indeed a worthwhile cause, even if you aren't that good at it.

You don't have to be an expert on religion, philosophy or theism/atheism or even science to cause other people to question themselves or doubt their erroneous beliefs. If a person who has been bombarded with theistic bs (that includes everyone, even atheists, we are all constantly bombarded with that religious nonsense) all his life hears or reads something you say, like an example of why you don't believe, or especially why you stopped believing, that will probably cause him to question himself, and cause him to feel doubt. After he is exposed to several people who all give him the reasons why they no longer believe in God (or never did) it will become more and more difficult for him to overloook the paradoxes, contradictions, and fallacies of his creed, and eventually, in due time, he may change, as I did, as a lot of people have. Such a change doesn't occur instantaneously, but over years of internal discussion (contemplation) over ideas which are very contradictory.

Some theists will evade logic and will never reason their way out of the religious trap that binds them, and that's just the way it is, just as billions of people in history never found a way out of their enslavement by their masters. But, it's definitely worth the effort to incite unreasonable people to become reasonable and definitely worth helping others become more knowledgeable and closer to knowing truth from fantasy.

My main tips for debating theists are:

Don't be hostile, try to be friendly, caring, empathetic. Remember that you have not always "had all the answers" and that when you were searching for them, you rejected people (and their ideas) who were assholes much more quickly than those who were endearing. In my example above, I could use a good (effective) method of communication saying "the water over in that lake tastes a LOT better than the water in this mud puddle" or I could use a poor method like kicking him in the head and saying "hey you stupid neanderthal, try the water in that lake you moron." He might get the point, or he might just want to kick me back.

If a theist uses some really outlandish argument, I would just say "are you sure about that?" making him question his own ridiculous assertion, without wasting my own time or effort to prove his ridiculous assertion false. In a good discussion, you will ask him "are you sure" quite a few times.

When arguing with theists, don't let them slip out of being rational; keep them thinking rationally and logically. Theism and rationality are opposites, if he is thinking in logical terms, his own theistic terms will appear more and more illogical so it is essential to keep the discussion rational.

Never give the theist ammunition. Although theists claim to be lovey dovey and caring, that is not true, they are fearful and hateful and illogical by nature. If an opportunity arises where he can "score points" (in his mind) by deriding or insulting you, he will seize that opportunity, so never allow yourself to be hostile or allow yourself to say something as irrational as they do.

Another tact, if you just don't like the guy, is to drive him into a frenzy, get him to start cussing you out, get him to be filled with hate, and then just laugh and tell him what a hypocrite he is and then shame him for his unChristian behavior until he runs away. That's not advisable if the person is someone you work with or are friends with, but is an option for really outspoken assholes that you might come accross online.

[coolguy]

This part was for AtheistMessiah, I wanted to make sure he saw it. I hope it helps you.

coolguy said:

If a theist uses some really outlandish argument, I would just say "are you sure about that?" making him question his own ridiculous assertion, without wasting my own time or effort to prove his ridiculous assertion false. In a good discussion, you will ask him "are you sure" quite a few times.

When arguing with theists, don't let them slip out of being rational; keep them thinking rationally and logically. Theism and rationality are opposites, if he is thinking in logical terms, his own theistic terms will appear more and more illogical so it is essential to keep the discussion rational.

Never give the theist ammunition. Although theists claim to be lovey dovey and caring, that is not true, they are fearful and hateful and illogical by nature. If an opportunity arises where he can "score points" (in his mind) by deriding or insulting you, he will seize that opportunity, so never allow yourself to be hostile or allow yourself to say something as irrational as they do.

[Franc28]

Yes, because most atheists still refuse to make claims of knowledge. We need to convince them that they should not concede the cosmological and ontological upper-hand to the theists.

[AuntieSocial]

I think that the benefit of debate isn't necessarily realised by the participants, but it is for the audience (if there is one). When I debate religious (or political) concepts, I am usually up against someone who is quite set in thier ways. Often, that means a fundamentalist or an apologist. The person who gains the most from the debate is the individual hearing the two sides and might be questioning their faith, or may be a closet atheist looking for a reason to embrace the term.

I doubt my arguments will ever have any effect on my opponent, jsut as their arguments will have little effect on me. I enjoy the interchange. I like being able to formulate a counter argument to whatever they throw my way. To me, debate is a worthy intellectual exercise, regardless of the topic. I will usually throw my hat in the ring on any topic (I stay away from the pro-life/pro-choice debate though).

[BaalShemRa]

Auntie,

Why stay away from the pro-life/pro-choice debate?

[AuntieSocial]

BSR - the pro-life/pro-choice is just one of those topics that I don't feel comfortable debating. The debate NEVER stays on an intellectual/acedemic level. Someone always gets extremely emotional (from their own experiences and/or anger) and the issue eventually gets lost in "bumper sticker theism" and "70's femenist slogans"