Please don't stop debating with Christians. I know Dawkins said he wouldn't any more (...is that still true?) My point is this: as frustrating it can be to engage with one idiot, there are dozens of others who lurk and listen; fence sitters who are looking for answers.
Overhearing a profound truth is far more likely to effect a change in someone's thinking than a direct strident disagreement with them. So, stay calm and logical. Ad hominem attacks will only serve you wrong.
Just sayin'
11
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
15 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I like how you reference "fence sitters". I think some people just need permission to let themselves explore, and hearing reasonable people with differing views can be very helpful in that. It was very helpful for me to read or listen to atheists defend their position as I was considering things. I also agree with the need to avoid ad hominem attacks. Rational thought often just shuts down in that environment.
I see, however, that you do frequently use Hominid arguments. 
CC_David
Level 5
Dec 8, 2017
2
Ha ha...
I wouldn't dream of it, @Hominid ... it is part of life, like breathing, eating, and sleeping. It is interesting to me that as the new crop of believers comes on line, they are easier to deal with. Not because they are new to the faith (which they are), but because they are thinking and understanding more than earlier iterations. There is light at the end of the tunnel and it may not be an oncoming train.
evidentialist
Level 8
Dec 8, 2017
2
Unfortunately, the alt truth side is strongly trying to stop that light from turning on. They are targeting people at the earliest stages and using the most fearful and hateful means.
There is a saying I always like.
Never fight with Chimney sweeps,you will end up covered in soot.
That said I agree you should try to be logic until you know logic is not working then safely retire. I find Dawkins has been sucked into a battle he cannot win.
VinceRichardson
Level 6
Dec 8, 2017
0
I humbly disagree. Using logic and reason can ONLY result in truth winning out for those seeking absolute truth. Truth that is based on immutable fact. Sure, there will always be those who refuse the perfection of logic and reason and stick their fingers in their ears while sticking their head in the sand. That doesn't translate to "Dawkins has been sucked into a battle he cannot win."
Fair points,but it is those who are not wanting to listen I was referring to. End of the day though I still do not really see where Dawkins is going past the evolution bit.Ok we can get the story correct but that still does not rule out the existance of a god.So you defeat one line of thought,,,creationism,...to be still confronted by another....belief in a god....why devote your life to that?He is rather obsessed if you ask me,not unlike the types he is trying to convince.
I think it may be very probable that I was a lurker. I have discovered truths that I thought were original, only to find that others had discovered them before me, and wondered if maybe I had heard those ideas somewhere and forgotten, but still had them in my subconscious.
TommyMeador
Level 7
Dec 8, 2017
2
Don't sell yourself short, @TommyMeador because some, maybe even all of what you thought was original to you, may have been just that. Original. Your creation. History is full of parallel development unknown to the other parties. You may not be able to take credit for originating an idea, you can give yourself credit for having thought of it independently.
Not putting myself down. Just wondering about the reality I exist in. Good ideas are good ideas no matter where they come from. And if I take two ideas and put them together, that's original, but some credit goes to the originators of the ideas I used.
I understand what you mean and a part of me agrees. However I also believe that people should have the right to think for themselves, even those who choose not to think should be allowed to do so.
If someone chooses to reject their religion or accept another then that's fine. Their personal choices are theirs to make.
Religion is for people who want to believe in something greater than themselves. It provides a space where they can meet and congregate, it is a community. In a world where people are becoming more and more suspicious of their neighbours or family members, it is a nice relief to go to a community of like minded people.
Those who choose a logical path for free-thinkers, libertarians, etc. Those people need to do so because they want to.
As a libertarian I believe in small government and a "live and let live" philosophy. I believe in the right to defend oneself and understand that there are dangers in the world which need to be dealt with.
Religion is a personal choice (Or lack thereof) which is why, as long as they don't bother me, I'm fine with religious people.
Lancer
Level 7
Dec 8, 2017
1
I agree with you partially, in that having a belief different than yours does no harm; live and let live. To me, it's the safe harbour that religion provides for those who want to do harm that is the issue. Female genital mutilation. Misogyny. Slavery. Oppression. Suicide bombings. Ethnic cleansing. All for God and Allah. Some mental health officials are trying to classify faith-based religion as a mental illness. I say it can't happen fast enough.
THis is the first site of this type I have engaged in. My point of view on these topics has been more of a personal thing and convincing someone else has never been a priority of mine.
The number of times people here call others stupid or some variant of that really stands out. I think If I were into changing other peoples position holding or stating that attitude would be a great impediment to the conversion mission
btroje
Level 9
Dec 8, 2017
2
Exactly! My desire to debate went away as I left my faith. I want conversation now, connection without an agenda of changing your mind.
I remember in grade school when we were told anyone that was not Catholic was going to hell. THat went over real well wth my little friends
@btroje - There truly are individuals who deserve the title "stupid", sorry... We've all met them. I use the term here assuming I'm in a safe environment of like-minded people who share a similar value system and belief structure. I'm not accusatory or inconsiderate when I engage someone deserving of that title in an open, public forum where I know there's lots of listeners on both sides of the debate. Read my post again and you'll get what I mean.
I remember, one cloudy day, passing by a religious tent at the county fair. A young guy stopped me and tried to talk me into joining his church, I tried to refuse politely but he kept on at me. It started raining but he wouldn't let up! By the time I got away I was soaking wet. So I am sorry to say that I will never debate with Christians again, it's just not worth the effort...
Beelzebub
Level 5
Dec 8, 2017
1
That was downright disrespectful, but don't paint all Christians with the same brush. It's the seekers and lurkers I like to target, indirectly. Just sayin'
A few points, perhaps: because you have differing belief systems, it doesn't make anybody an 'idiot'. That is hubris and arrogance. And it doesn't sound like you want to 'debate' anybody, but convert them. Maybe you should get a suit and go door to door...I hear that is a popular conversion tactic. Oh oh oh, I got a phrase for ya! Have you read the even 'gooder' book....hehe...oh man, I want to get a suit and tie and do that now....damn it.
JohnnyThorazine
Level 7
Dec 8, 2017
2
I guess you haven't debated with idiots yet. I have. Some Christians are thoughtful, and will engage in a discussion that is mutually respectful, which I enjoy most. So your judgement of my arrogance says more about you than me.
I don't need to belittle people I debate with. In fact, I can disagree with someone completely, and still maintain a discussion without the use of derogatory remarks. Debate 101. Derogation is often an expression of inferiority. And I am sure we all feel inferior at times, but no need to advertise it.
Dawkins said Nationaism is the worst Religion. Why is it this site ignore the dangers of Nationaism.
Not to take away anything from the insanity of Religion?
Would it take a nuclear bomb to wake people up?
Castlepaloma
Level 8
Dec 8, 2017
0
I am pretty sure people here would discuss nationalism if you brought it up in a thread
I made two threads only one taker.
Spiritual is about the 99 percent unknowns. What do we know about the 5 questions thread I gave online, where the Government can't answer. Yet an adverage person pays more in taxes than we pay in food and rent.
Religious nationalism is the relationship of nationalism to a particular religious belief, dogma, or affiliation. This relationship can be broken down into two aspects: the politicization of religion and the influence of religion on politics.[1]
In the former aspect, a shared religion can be seen to contribute to a sense of national unity, a common bond among the citizens of the nation. Another political aspect of religion is the support of a national identity, similar to a shared ethnicity, language, or culture. The influence of religion on politics is more ideological, where current interpretations of religious ideas inspire political activism and action; for example, laws are passed to foster stricter religious adherence.[2]
Ideologically-driven religious nationalism may not necessarily be targeted against other religions per se, but can be articulated in response to modernity and, in particular, secular nationalism. Indeed, religious nationalism may articulate itself as the binary of secular nationalism. Nation-states whose boundaries and borders are relatively recent or that have experienced colonialism may be more prone to religious nationalism, which may stand as a more authentic or "traditional" rendering of identity. Thus, there was a global rise of religious nationalism in the wake of the end of the cold war, but also as postcolonial politics (facing considerable developmental challenges, but also dealing with the reality of colonially-defined, and therefore somewhat artificial, borders) became challenged. In such a scenario, appealing to a national sense of Islamic identity, as in the cases of Pakistan and Indonesia, may serve to override regional tensions.
The danger is that when the state derives political legitimacy from adherence to religious doctrines, this may leave an opening to overtly religious elements, institutions, and leaders, making the appeals to religion more 'authentic' by bringing more explicitly theological interpretations to political life. Thus, appeals to religion as a marker of ethnicity creates an opening for more strident and ideological interpretations of religious nationalism.
Many ethnic and cultural nationalisms include religious aspects, but as a marker of group identity, rather than the intrinsic motivation for nationalist claims.
US Christian nationalism same for Muslim countries except the word God is not in the America Constitution. I think US is national Corperationism with reaches to more worldwide other Corperations Nationaism countries.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. To the point that I've been accused of proselytizing. I'm not sure I have found an appropriate response to that. The "go do the research" response or "I've done the research" or even "here's the research" is often replied to with "I've read the bible. Have you read the bible? Here! Have a Bible."
DJVJ311
Level 7
Dec 8, 2017
1
Hmm, a bit like christian proseletising in reverse????. But seriously I see where you are coming from because I find it incredibly sad that there are so many people who are living a delusion; ignoring the intelligence they have and living lives in fear. At base I guess it is fear of death, for others it is fear of reality, and still others unable to face the diagnosis of mental illness without the support christianity affords, because they don't believe they have the resorces within themslves to manage their illness.
My older brother lived as an atheist for years, was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder and went back to the church for its support. On the other hand a niece has Border line personality disorder, is an atheist and has made great strides because of her insight and willingness to do the work required to manage her disorder.
So I am not going to stop engaging with christians, because my experience has taught me that we do have all the resources we need to face difficulties life throws at us and do not need the delusion of religion.
Veronica
Level 4
Dec 8, 2017
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.