Do atheists think that debating Christian apologists is wrong?

[Unknown Soldier]

I understand that many atheists do not like being exposed to religious arguments in particular Christian apologetics. Such atheists say that they find such arguments to be "annoying" and will not tolerate them. They see any kind of religious proselytizing as disrespectful. Many atheists are fair, though, and say that atheists arguing against Christian beliefs to Christians is also disrespectful. I personally enjoy debating Christians about their beliefs arguing against them. I especially tend to focus on Christian beliefs that I know can be harmful. So are such debates with Christians inappropriate?

 

[steve_bank]

Christians always paint themselves as under assault and their religious rights are unbder attack. They blame a number of groups including atheists. Another is those pesky liberal democrats.

The irony is they as a group chronically try to impose interpretation of scripture on others, abortion rights being a prominent issue. Gay rights another. Gd says this shoud be, therfore all must comply.

The Vatican has periodically threatened Catholic politicians with religious suctions if they di not vote the Vatican policies.

Over time I have come to rake debating theists not just an exercise, but a matter of self defense of my rights to be free from religion.


The founders understood this, relgion had been well debated in the colonies which most or all had tax supported state reliion.

The Constitution does not explicitly srate freedom from religion, however there are injections against religious test for public office and against govt enacting laws to establish or promote religion.

Another irony is Protestants objecting to a papal central authority imposing interpretation on others, yet they presume to impose scriptura on others and limit behavior and thought and speech.

And finally invoking the term atheist as a group has no meaning, atheists who reject gods can and do hold diverse political, philisophical views and views on relgion.

A Wican can be an atheist. An atheist can believe in ghosts and alien abductions.

 

[Bronzeage]

The general definition of this kind of debate is an event where two opposing viewpoints or positions are presented, along with citations of relevant evidence, to a group which will choose one or the other to be more convincing.

Most reports of the great debate about Darwin's On the Origin of Species, involving Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley, give the win to the Biblical advocates. It's very seldom a debate settles who is correct.

Whether any debate can be worth the time and effort depends upon the proposition. "Christian beliefs" is a vague term. What percent of Christians would have to ascribe to a specific belief in order for it not to be a simple straw man attack? How would you delineate specific beliefs and then define any harmful effects? How would one counter the argument that atheist beliefs are evil because some atheists advocate for eugenics and euthanasia?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Over time I have come to rake debating theists not just an exercise, but a matter of self defense of my rights to be free from religion.

The founders understood this, relgion had been well debated in the colonies which most or all had tax supported state reliion.

This is basically my position. Anybody who holds beliefs that if acted on will adversely affect me is somebody I should argue against. Many Christian beliefs like their holding that unbelievers are moral wretches who deserve to be punished is a belief I should counter by demonstrating it to be false.

Strangely, some atheists oppose arguing with Christians. It seems like they prefer to preach to the choir.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do atheists think that debating Christian apologists is wrong?

Depends on what tge debate is.
Debating creationists gives them way too much credibility.
Debating Evangelicals about whether this is a Xian nation is crucial.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The general definition of this kind of debate is an event where two opposing viewpoints or positions are presented, along with citations of relevant evidence, to a group which will choose one or the other to be more convincing.

I've seen a lot of formal debates between Christians and unbelievers on YouTube. I've learned a lot about debating from both sides of those debates.

Most reports of the great debate about Darwin's On the Origin of Species, involving Samuel Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley, give the win to the Biblical advocates.

Really? Most of the reviews I've seen give the win to Huxley. "The Lord have (hath) delivered him into my hands."

It's very seldom a debate settles who is correct.

I have seen debates that are scored by polling the audience before and after the debate to see which side changed the most minds. The atheists won in at least one of those debates.

Whether any debate can be worth the time and effort depends upon the proposition. "Christian beliefs" is a vague term.

I use the phrase "Christian beliefs" as an umbrella term for the beliefs that many Christians get out of the Bible.

What percent of Christians would have to ascribe to a specific belief in order for it not to be a simple straw man attack?

I just qualify the Christian beliefs I'm referring to by using qualifiers like "some" or "many."

How would you delineate specific beliefs and then define any harmful effects?

Science can hold answers to those kinds of questions. For example, in a recent issue of Scientific American I read an article detailing the adverse health effects that can follow by limiting abortions. It referred to recent anti-abortion legislation in some states like Texas brought on by some Christian groups.

How would one counter the argument that atheist beliefs are evil because some atheists advocate for eugenics and euthanasia?

Some atheists do have potentially harmful beliefs. I don't need to agree with them. If I was a member of a religious group, on the other hand, I might need to agree with everything they say regardless of consequences.

 

[steve_bank]

Over time I have come to rake debating theists not just an exercise, but a matter of self defense of my rights to be free from religion.

The founders understood this, relgion had been well debated in the colonies which most or all had tax supported state reliion.

This is basically my position. Anybody who holds beliefs that if acted on will adversely affect me is somebody I should argue against. Many Christian beliefs like their holding that unbelievers are moral wretches who deserve to be punished is a belief I should counter by demonstrating it to be false.

Strangely, some atheists oppose arguing with Christians. It seems like they prefer to preach to the choir.

Not too long ago openly opposing Christians as an atheist could get you in trouble in your community and work. In the extreme death threats. I watched a documentary on a prominent atheist family around the 1930s. It was not as bad as Jim Crow but an atheistt could be at risk.

One of the rthings the Civil Rights movement did was open the door on what freedom in this country really means, freddom of specch and action is not just for the status quo.

As I like to put it the old saying goes 'Your right to extend your elbow ends at my nose'.

 

[southernhybrid]

I have no problem with atheists debating Christians, although I rarely do it myself, other than posting a few things here sometimes.

My Christian friends all know I'm an atheist and in order to maintain close friendships, we avoid the topic of religion. Imo, it's more important to be openly atheist and set a good moral example. There are many misconceptions about atheists that need to be defeated, so imo, that is more important than debating.

I'd prefer a world where tolerance and good works are of primary importance. I really don't care if others believe in the supernatural as long as these beliefs are a positive influence, leading them to be more charitable.

I don't see much point in debating the immoral, repulsive type of Christian as it's almost impossible to bring someone out of a life long cult. But, if an atheist wants to take these people on, go for it.

And, let me add that if an atheist feels too threatened to come out of the closet, that's cool too. We all have different types of personalities. Some people don't feel comfortable debating or having to defend themselves.

 

[atrib]

I understand that many atheists do not like being exposed to religious arguments in particular Christian apologetics. Such atheists say that they find such arguments to be "annoying" and will not tolerate them. They see any kind of religious proselytizing as disrespectful. Many atheists are fair, though, and say that atheists arguing against Christian beliefs to Christians is also disrespectful. I personally enjoy debating Christians about their beliefs arguing against them. I especially tend to focus on Christian beliefs that I know can be harmful. So are such debates with Christians inappropriate?

In the context of a debate or discussion, I have very little interest in what someone believes, I care primarily about what someone can demonstrate with facts and reason. Most discussions I have had with theists, on online forums or in real life, quickly devolve into an assertion of their unsupported beliefs, with generous helpings of self-serving special pleading and cognitive dissonance. I am 55, have been a skeptic since I was old enough to think for myself, and have lived for almost 32 years in the South - and I have been exposed to more than my fair share of apologetics and outright proselytizing, to the point where I am sick of it. I don't give a fuck that you believe that your god is the greatest god ever invented by humans; if you cannot put together an argument based on facts and reason I am not interested. I have read the Bible and am well aware of what it says, and I don't need someone else telling me what it means.

 

[ideologyhunter]

How many of us freethinkers would be out & proud if it weren't for the instinct to call bullshit on superstition? It took a few minutes with Why I Am Not a Christian (from my dad's bookshelf) at age 12 to realize in a healthful, gleeful flash that I didn't believe the gobbledegook and never would.

 

[Elixir]

I understand that many atheists do not like being exposed to religious arguments in particular Christian apologetics. Such atheists say that they find such arguments to be "annoying" and will not tolerate them. They see any kind of religious proselytizing as disrespectful

Disrespectful? No, I realize that they are mostly convinced that they are following a divine directive to save me from eternal torture in the Lake-O-Fahr.
Annoying? Yes. But mostly just stupid and sad. I used to enjoy "debating" them, but not having come to their position through reason, they are never going to be dissuaded from that position by reason. So in the end its only benefit is the re-examination of my own reasons for being bored and disgusted by them. I no longer feel any need for further affirmation of those reasons, so ...

 

[atrib]

How would one counter the argument that atheist beliefs are evil because some atheists advocate for eugenics and euthanasia?

The only criteria for being an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. That's it. Everything else is unrelated, and atheists can and do hold widely varying opinions on subjects that do not relate to this core position, like eugenics and euthanasia.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Not too long ago openly opposing Christians as an atheist could get you in trouble in your community and work. In the extreme death threats. I watched a documentary on a prominent atheist family around the 1930s. It was not as bad as Jim Crow but an atheistt could be at risk.

Nowadays atheism has gone from that to being frowned upon by some people. Many Christians seem to think that atheism is odd or sad. Polled Americans rate atheists as low on the scale of trustworthiness. However, I think they have a stereotype-atheist in mind when they say that. Most of the Christians I know have a high opinion of me even though they know I'm an atheist.

But what I think is odd is why some atheists would think that arguing atheism with Christians is disrespectful or obnoxious. Maybe such atheists fear a backlash from Christians like you've documented if our unbelief is too obvious.

One of the rthings the Civil Rights movement did was open the door on what freedom in this country really means, freddom of specch and action is not just for the status quo.

The Civil Rights Movement demonstrated that freedom isn't free, and the result of it has demonstrated that freedom is way too expensive. What we have in America is outright persecution of ethnic minorities as well as the elderly and the disabled. So the attitude toward atheists and the way they are treated online is just the tip of the iceberg.

As I like to put it the old saying goes 'Your right to extend your elbow ends at my nose'.

If we have freedom of speech, then it needs to be balanced with freedom from speech. Nobody should be subjected to talk that they don't want to read or hear. That's why I tell people in forums that if they don't like to be exposed to what I say, then they can always click out of it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I understand that many atheists do not like being exposed to religious arguments in particular Christian apologetics. Such atheists say that they find such arguments to be "annoying" and will not tolerate them. They see any kind of religious proselytizing as disrespectful. Many atheists are fair, though, and say that atheists arguing against Christian beliefs to Christians is also disrespectful. I personally enjoy debating Christians about their beliefs arguing against them. I especially tend to focus on Christian beliefs that I know can be harmful. So are such debates with Christians inappropriate?.

Depends on context. Taking my pants off can be quite offensive if done in the wrong place. Really, your opening premise is suspect as it is really vague and complains about a position taken by people you haven't established.. And supposing there are atheists that feel arguing against theists is wasteful, are atheists obliged to argue with Christians?

If we have freedom of speech, then it needs to be balanced with freedom from speech. Nobody should be subjected to talk that they don't want to read or hear. That's why I tell people in forums that if they don't like to be exposed to what I say, then they can always click out of it.

Tell people in forums? What, are you just bouncing from forum to forum to tell people to have arguments?

 

[steve_bank]

It is not about not liking being exposed to religions ideas, it is about the intrusiveness and infringement of rights based on ancient writings of a tribal group, IOW Hebrews.

I doubt any of the atheists on the forum care about anyone's personal beliefs per se. If you want to get naked and howl at the full moon, go for it.

It is about actions and in the name of religion and a god.

With American Jews I have known I always had the feeling of a human connection beyond relgion and beliefs. Perhaps 'I'm ok you're pk'. Of courde there are extreme conservative Jews in the USA.

With Christians it is always in the end a boundary, I am Christian and you are not. Several time in conversation I am suddenly confronted without warning with an attempt at conversion.

Christians in general are intrusive and derive a god given biblical mandate to convert others. Look at the Native American cultural genocide in favor of Christianity starting with the first Europeans in South America.

Conservatives often use the communist bogyman to instill fear, yet i is they who want a uniform Christian conformity.

Juxtapose the RCC with the modern Chinese CCP trying to force a uniform conformity with penalties for resistance, and you have the history of the RCC and Christianity in general.

 

[abaddon]

I understand that many atheists do not like being exposed to religious arguments in particular Christian apologetics. Such atheists say that they find such arguments to be "annoying" and will not tolerate them.

It's a notion a lot of people-in-general hold in society - if you want to keep things friendly then don't talk politics or religion. But I've never encountered it specifically among atheists.

In what context did you observe any atheist saying they don't like being exposed to Christian apologetics? Getting annoyed after a time with stupidity and lies is understandable. If it seems futile to a person, then why not bow out of the debates/arguments? But the way you phrase it, it comes across as something different than that.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I have no problem with atheists debating Christians, although I rarely do it myself, other than posting a few things here sometimes.

If I know somebody is wrong, then I tell them if I can. I do so in person as well as online. I don't think it's disrespectful at all. I've debated Christians in person as well as online. None of those Christians were hurt.

My Christian friends all know I'm an atheist and in order to maintain close friendships, we avoid the topic of religion. Imo, it's more important to be openly atheist and set a good moral example. There are many misconceptions about atheists that need to be defeated, so imo, that is more important than debating.

I've told Christian apologists that the best apologetic is for them to give a good example of just how sensible, informed, and moral a Christian is due to their beliefs. As far as I know none of them have taken up that challenge.

I'd prefer a world where tolerance and good works are of primary importance. I really don't care if others believe in the supernatural as long as these beliefs are a positive influence, leading them to be more charitable.

One of my biggest concerns about religious belief is the adverse impact it can have on education especially science education. Living in a society full of uninformed and misinformed people can't be a good thing if education has any value at all. So I do care if any kind of thinking or lack of thinking results in millions of superstitious, ignorant people.

I don't see much point in debating the immoral, repulsive type of Christian as it's almost impossible to bring someone out of a life long cult. But, if an atheist wants to take these people on, go for it.

Since I don't really know who is a hopeless case and who isn't, I take on all comers. Even if a "hopeless case" won't listen to reason, some of those looking on might well listen to reason.

Some people don't feel comfortable debating or having to defend themselves.

Evidently some atheists feel that way, and that's why they objected to my debating Christians. They may have feared that they would be proved wrong too.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, to answer this OP, it will require a bit of history: in highschool and earlier, I was an apologist of the Christian variety. I had by the age of 17 memorized the majority of just so things from all the Christian summer and extracurricular activities, and armed with internet access, managed to also acquire their more "grown-up" permutations.

Then, after a time of parroting all that bullshit, I started to really try to understand it "well". I tried to understand it so well, that I started studying "the opposition" views so that I could use my just so arguments to defeat them...

The issue here is, I couldn't. There was always a "hole" in the logic, and I started getting really good at finding those holes.

Eventually, I discovered that all such arguments seemed to be built on a pile of sand... The same pile of sand they accused secular people of building on.

The reason I despise arguing with them so much is that it is like arguing with an amnesiac: no matter how many times you educate single individuals away from a single bad view, there will always be a pile of bad views and even people who hold the same bad view. It's all PRATTs... And they aren't even interesting ones.

I have been here for some time now, and can almost recite the litany of posts any new Christian apologist here makes. There's always some attempting-to-be-clever appeal to a a KCA type argument, maybe two, maybe some about heaven, and then a giant pile of Gish Gallop whenever they are remotely put to question.

Really, it's not the nature of the religiousity that annoys me. It's the fact that I've already had the same conversation with different meat.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So when you were a Christian apologist you were OK debating atheists. Is that correct?

 

[steve_bank]

If I know somebody is wrong, then I tell them if I can. I do so in person as well as online. I don't think it's disrespectful at all. I've debated Christians in person as well as online. None of those Christians were hurt.



I've told Christian apologists that the best apologetic is for them to give a good example of just how sensible, informed, and moral a Christian is due to their beliefs. As far as I know none of them have taken up that challenge.

I'd prefer a world where tolerance and good works are of primary importance. I really don't care if others believe in the supernatural as long as these beliefs are a positive influence, leading them to be more charitable.

One of my biggest concerns about religious belief is the adverse impact it can have on education especially science education. Living in a society full of uninformed and misinformed people can't be a good thing if education has any value at all. So I do care if any kind of thinking or lack of thinking results in millions of superstitious, ignorant people.

I don't see much point in debating the immoral, repulsive type of Christian as it's almost impossible to bring someone out of a life long cult. But, if an atheist wants to take these people on, go for it.

Since I don't really know who is a hopeless case and who isn't, I take on all comers. Even if a "hopeless case" won't listen to reason, some of those looking on might well listen to reason.

Some people don't feel comfortable debating or having to defend themselves.

Evidently some atheists feel that way, and that's why they objected to my debating Christians. They may have feared that they would be proved wrong too.

Are you on a mission to correct all who believe in what you think are untruths? If so yiu have a mighty task.

I do not care if somebody belives in astrology, I will rwact if somebody yses astrolgy to make decions that affect oters.

A foundational principle of our western liberal democracies is the right of self determination. I would never try to dissuade or 'deconvert' anyone, I am not anti religion, I oppose specific actions in the name of religion. Same with any philosophy.

I know I am not all knowing, from that comes a degree o humility and tolerance for that which I do not like.