How would you debate a street preacher?

[Brian63]

Have you ever encountered a street evangelist in your own life? Anyone who was shouting, or just talking more calmly, to strangers on the street about how much they needed to swear obedience to their own version of god, or else? I never have seen one in real life, but have heard of them and seen videos of them, and been kinda intrigued.

For many years, Ray Comfort has been a prominent street preacher in fundy Christian circles. He also has his own Facebook blog. I enjoy reading his own posts, and he sometimes also posts a video where he goes to people on the street with a certain script of questions and answers. Namely, he says something like:

"Are you a good person?
Yes.
Have you ever told a lie?
Yes.
What do you call someone who lies?
A liar.
So by your own admission you are a liar.
[…silence…] Yeah, I guess so.

Have you ever taken something that is not yours?
Yes.
What do you call someone who takes something that is not theirs?
A thief.
So by your own admission you’re a liar and a thief...

[Then he goes on to point out how the Bible condemns such people, but Jesus saved us from himself---blah, blah, blah]."

There are so many fallacies and misunderstandings and errors that are part of his arguments, but the thing is they sound really persuasive to someone who has not given much quality thought to the issues. His arguments are brief, but effective. Ignorant, but effective.

I would love debating Ray over the internet on a message board like this, and it would be no problem exposing the numerous faults in his arguments. The hard part though is how to respond to them in a more immediate real life setting, in front of an audience even. Any way you respond to his evangelism has to be not only informative, but quick. You do not have to just refute his arguments, but you have to refute them in 5 seconds or less. How would you respond to Ray, or any street apologist, that says those things?

Brian

 

[Brian63]

I think I would give the following a try:

Have you ever told the truth?
Yes.
What do you call someone who tells the truth?
An honest person.
So by your own admission you are an honest person.
[…Ray in silence…] Yeah, I guess so.
God is going to punish you for being an honest person then…
Oh yeah, I never thought about that. This god is certainly an asshole then. Good thing he is not real after all. My religious beliefs are just starting to make sense now. I’m an atheist!



How would you refute his preaching, in a very quick manner? Or at least get him to start to think about the subject in a little more depth than he has been?

Brian

 

[Shake]

You can't just point out Ray's flaws to him, because he's too heavily invested in his acting like he believes the shit which comes out of his mouth to actually admit that he doesn't believe any of it. He's had evolution explained to him before to no avail. More than once even.

But hopefully you don't run across someone like Eric Hovind on the street.

I'd like to think I might do it the way that Aron Ra did, or this girl.

I wouldn't worry too much about the street preachers though, but rather on how to talk to normal people like what Anthony Magnabosco does.

 

[James Brown]

"Are you a good person?"

"I can't answer that question honestly. It's too subjective. It's like asking if I'm a funny person, or a handsome person. If you really want to know, you'd have to ask my friends and family if I'm a good person."

 

[Brian63]

You can't just point out Ray's flaws to him, because he's too heavily invested in his acting like he believes the shit which comes out of his mouth to actually admit that he doesn't believe any of it. He's had evolution explained to him before to no avail. More than once even.

I am watching another video now of Thunderfoot and Comfort discussing evolution, beginning of life, etc. At about 2:15 he makes the comment that "I do not believe that every time you are having a shower you are committing mass murder." Ha! That is a great line, will try to remember that. However you respond to someone like Comfort, it not only has to be quick, but it also has to be cute and rhetorically captivating, and something the person can already relate to. Not really a good way to discover actual truth, however. Just has to be psychologically appealing. Such a mess, how the human mind works (or fails to work).

Brian

 

[Keith&Co.]

How would you refute his preaching, in a very quick manner? Or at least get him to start to think about the subject in a little more depth than he has been?

I don't think you can.
He's going to edit his film to match his desired conclusions, anyway.

But I'd probably respond the way I do when the 'qualified Microsoft technician' tells me that my computer has detected a virus. "Oh, really? There are eight computers in this house. Which one are you talking about?"

"Are you a good person?"
"I dunno. How do you define 'good?' What's your standard?"
"Let's say the Bible. Do you think you're a good person by the Bible's standards?"
"Which Bible?"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

First, know your enemy and your audience. Does this one like to scream?

You can't successfully debate loud street preachers unless you're a practiced actor, because that is all they are doing. The better actor will carry the crowd and the day. So go home and practice.

Also, deliver shock lines that they do not expect. Generally speaking they are practiced to mock and belittle you in front of others, Greek Theater 101.

Finally, invade their space by standing very close and never losing eye contact.

You will know when they've thrown in the towel.

 

[Brian63]

Another approach---

Ray: Everything that was created has a creator. It cannot just create itself.
Me: Yes.
Ray: So what created the universe?
Me: I don't know.
Ray: You do have a creator, because the world cannot create itself. So we know god exists.
Me: So what created the creator? What created god?
Ray: God was not created.
Me: You say god does exist, even though god was not created. So something can exist, even if it was not created to exist? It can still exist anyway? Maybe the universe exists, even though there was no creator that created it.

[Then we could explore the composition fallacy in more depth, which his views rely on. Namely, the composition fallacy assumes that the rules and laws that apply to the individual members and parts of a group also apply to the whole group itself. That is bad logic.]

I wonder what his reflexive response to that would be.

Brian

 

[funinspace]

Have you ever encountered a street evangelist in your own life? Anyone who was shouting, or just talking more calmly, to strangers on the street about how much they needed to swear obedience to their own version of god, or else? I never have seen one in real life, but have heard of them and seen videos of them, and been kinda intrigued.

Wow, never had to walk by one... There was one at my college that would purposely stand at a place where students were forced to wait in line, like new semester class enrollments. Then I was a christian but found the yelling guy to be a idiotic nuisance and tried to ignore him like most others.

A few years ago I would periodically walk by this guy that would preach at a specific downtown spot, spewing the same kind of brimstone and hellfire scare talk. I generally ignored him, but the last time I walked by I did say to him "feed my sheep" and kept walking. He did pause for bit before getting back to his rage routine. But I don't think I would bother trying to debate/engage such a person...

 

[Brian63]

Thunderfoot sometimes has a nice gotcha line here and there, but for the most part I think is not doing a good job at publicly debating these fundies. I largely agree with him on the substance of his views, he just had done a poor job of presenting his views. With this type of fundie mindset, presentation matters so, so, so much. Now I am just a few minutes into watching his street-debate with Eric Hovind, and it does look he is dodging questions and being evasive. Quick and clever comebacks, gotcha-lines, and shock lines are needed to break down their religious barriers alongside the sophistication and deeper analysis. He is not doing the 1st part well, though he is right on the 2nd part. The crowd behind them would probably sympathize more with Hovind than they would with Thunderfoot, unfortunately.

Brian

 

[sharon45]

I have confidence and a solid case and the harangue does not, so I don't need to put on an act for him and the audience.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seeing that the street preacher's goal isn't about making a viable argument, but winning via a consensus of listeners, there really is not a way to deal with them. After all, they've heard most of the arguments before, so they have a bagful of tricks and fallacies to rely on. If they weren't good at it, they wouldn't be doing it.

The closest I came was some newbie evangelist who interrupted me while I was doing some work in the field. I kept my response simple, 'I can't follow a god that rewarded Jacob over Esau after Jacob stole from Esau and betrayed Isaac.' There really is no justification for god's actions there, so it kills the evangelical on the spot. He actually had to look up his notes, how I could tell he was a newbie. But if you let the evangelical take the lead, it is over before it starts.

 

[Brian63]

Seeing that the street preacher's goal isn't about making a viable argument, but winning via a consensus of listeners, there really is not a way to deal with them.

I think that is a common but mistaken view among atheists, actually. Their goal is to do both---make a viable argument and winning via a consensus of listeners. In their mind, they actually are doing both. They think the views they hold are rational and viable. They are being honest, or at least they are not just intentionally and knowledgeably deceiving everybody. They really do think they are right. When they use the script like Ray does of his "Good Person Test" he thinks that argument is sound. It is actually flawed in numerous ways, but he just does not examine it to the depth where he would be willing to recognize that. On the superficial depth that he has examined it and is willing to examine it (and no further), he does perceive it as a rational belief. He is not outright lying or deceiving, but is instead taking more of a mental shortcut, and perhaps completely honestly so (I do think Ray in particular has more private doubts about his Christian views than he would say publicly, but he is still largely being honest). The problem with them is not honesty, it is openness to new ideas that challenge their existing worldview. It is a huge mental bias towards one view that they perceive as truth, not that they are not trying to understand what truth is.

Brian

 

[ideologyhunter]

It's absolutely pointless to debate them unless the point is to get some kicks. They can be fascinating, though. I watched one guy who had a small crowd around him at the Central Pennsylvania Festival of the Arts. He sensed that he had the young avant garde crowd around him, the cynical unbelievers (which was partly true), and he got heated and defensive. Some of the college-age onlookers were debating him on hell & damnation, trying to get him to admit that a lot of damnation is contrary to both common sense, decency, and the supposed merciful nature of youknowwho. One guy wanted to know if gay people all went to hell. Street Preacher tried to turn this around and say that the argument was very Freudian, i.e., you must be gay even though you deny it, to be so obsessed. (This was before I read Freud's Future of an Illusion, which tells you how aggressive Freud's atheism was -- nowadays I would ask the guy why he's using a devout atheist as an authority.)
At some point, a few students tried to goad him into condemning them by uttering sacrilegious statements -- I think "Fuck the holy ghost" was in there. They would say, "Does this mean your god has condemned me?" The one that truly made him lose it was when he invoked divine judgment and one of the students said, "Fuck judgment!" Preach made a weird kind of slashing motion in the air and said, "You have condemned yourself to hell!" This of course provoked a bunch of onlookers to yell "Fuck judgment!" and he repeated the slashing move and told them they were sure to go to hell. (In retrospect, it's strange to me that judgment was the word that he couldn't stand to hear spoofed. He kept telling them they could repent of their other offenses against the lord.) Not to be left out, before I walked away I approached him and said,"Fuck judgment!" Reader, I was condemned to hell.

 

[Ramaraksha]

My main problem is that why so many not only fall for these threats and inducements but so many others keep their silence. Not all religions do this - just Christians and Muslims - Hindus don't neither do Buddhists & some other religions.

1. One would think that a professor or a sociologist, a psychologist or someone who studies morals and ethics would ask why? Why only some and not others?
2. How come these two shove their religion down your throat while others don't?
3. Which one is successful? Clearly in the 21st century it is the former - shove their religion down everyone's throats, liberal use of threats is working
4. So we see now why the likes of ISIS succeed or do what they do - they are being rewarded
5. In Hinduism we have Female Gods - no other religion does this - yet the biggest conversions of women is to Islam - a religion that treats women like dirt
6. Answer to question No.1 - the religions are different - in Hinduism & Buddhism(and you hear this in Buddhism esp that the Buddha cannot help you - we see would-be Buddhists saying I seek refuge in the Buddha and some experienced Buddhists saying that is not right, the Buddha can only be a Teacher - you must put in the work yourself.
Hinduism & Buddhism are individualistic faiths - the end-result depends on you - you decide what it is and you are different from every other person on earth
Christianity and Islam are Master/Slave religions - Master will GIVE(the operative word here) us the good life - basically a negation of real life - here on earth one has to work for a living, deal with the problems life throws at you - poverty, discrimination, disease, terrorism... the list is endless. Master will take us away to a magic land where we can live in peace - food, drink, housing all provided for - just sit back and enjoy the cozy retirement. And this is what they push.
Religions use this dream of a cushy life to push for conversions - "only our master can do this for you. Those other masters cannot and if you go with them, our master will get angry and punish you"

It is a sad statement of the 21st century that it is the latter view that is dominant. In every other sphere of human life we have moved forward, but when it comes to religion, Communist, Dictator-led religions dominate the planet

 

[Malintent]

I think I would give the following a try:

Have you ever told the truth?
Yes.
What do you call someone who tells the truth?
An honest person.
So by your own admission you are an honest person.
[…Ray in silence…] Yeah, I guess so.
God is going to punish you for being an honest person then…
Oh yeah, I never thought about that. This god is certainly an asshole then. Good thing he is not real after all. My religious beliefs are just starting to make sense now. I’m an atheist!



How would you refute his preaching, in a very quick manner? Or at least get him to start to think about the subject in a little more depth than he has been?

Brian

yup, that's pretty good... issues are not often so polar (right or wrong)... I like the mirroring you describe to show what yoda taught us decades ago.. "In absolutes only the Sith speak". However, he did previously say, "do or do not; there is no try". .so....

My first thought would be to trivialize his black and white hypothetical with this:

"Someone picks a wallet up off the street. It has both money and ID in it. They place it in their own pocket and keep it for themselves, never telling anyone about it." Did this person do something wrong?

"Yes. They should have turned it in so the rightful owner could get it."

"It was that person's wallet. He dropped it on the ground by mistake, and then picked it up and put it back into his pocket. Are you sure he did something wrong"?

"oh. You didn't say it wasn't their wallet"

"That's right. You just assumed it even though you didn't have the context. Morality is dependent on context, then, right?"

"I need to go"

 

[sharon45]

My main problem is that why so many not only fall for these threats and inducements but so many others keep their silence. Not all religions do this - just Christians and Muslims - Hindus don't neither do Buddhists & some other religions.

1. One would think that a professor or a sociologist, a psychologist or someone who studies morals and ethics would ask why? Why only some and not others?
2. How come these two shove their religion down your throat while others don't?

The NT specifically commands its followers to spread the supposed good news.

 

[sharon45]

I think I would give the following a try:

Have you ever told the truth?
Yes.
What do you call someone who tells the truth?
An honest person.
So by your own admission you are an honest person.
[…Ray in silence…] Yeah, I guess so.
God is going to punish you for being an honest person then…
Oh yeah, I never thought about that. This god is certainly an asshole then. Good thing he is not real after all. My religious beliefs are just starting to make sense now. I’m an atheist!



How would you refute his preaching, in a very quick manner? Or at least get him to start to think about the subject in a little more depth than he has been?

Brian

yup, that's pretty good... issues are not often so polar (right or wrong)... I like the mirroring you describe to show what yoda taught us decades ago.. "In absolutes only the Sith speak". However, he did previously say, "do or do not; there is no try". .so....

My first thought would be to trivialize his black and white hypothetical with this:

"Someone picks a wallet up off the street. It has both money and ID in it. They place it in their own pocket and keep it for themselves, never telling anyone about it." Did this person do something wrong?

"Yes. They should have turned it in so the rightful owner could get it."

"It was that person's wallet. He dropped it on the ground by mistake, and then picked it up and put it back into his pocket. Are you sure he did something wrong"?

Yeah, he did, because this wallet was actually someone else's that he had lifted earlier, and that was taken from yet another thief, etc.

 

[Malintent]

yup, that's pretty good... issues are not often so polar (right or wrong)... I like the mirroring you describe to show what yoda taught us decades ago.. "In absolutes only the Sith speak". However, he did previously say, "do or do not; there is no try". .so....

My first thought would be to trivialize his black and white hypothetical with this:

"Someone picks a wallet up off the street. It has both money and ID in it. They place it in their own pocket and keep it for themselves, never telling anyone about it." Did this person do something wrong?

"Yes. They should have turned it in so the rightful owner could get it."

"It was that person's wallet. He dropped it on the ground by mistake, and then picked it up and put it back into his pocket. Are you sure he did something wrong"?

Yeah, he did, because this wallet was actually someone else's that he had lifted earlier, and that was taken from yet another thief, etc.

You know the Ol' saying... "There are three elements to Morality... Context, Context, Context."

 

[Learner]

I think I would give the following a try:

Have you ever told the truth?
Yes.
What do you call someone who tells the truth?
An honest person.
So by your own admission you are an honest person.
[…Ray in silence…] Yeah, I guess so.

Satan is going to punish you for being an honest person then…

Didnt want to interrupt the flow but in regards to reversing the roles I thought to do so for the underlined above.