Do atheists think that debating Christian apologists is wrong?

[southernhybrid]

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.

I don't care if other atheists want to engage in debates or not and neither should you. Unlike some atheists, I don't believe that all religious beliefs are harmful. Mythology has always had a strong influence on human societies and probably always will to some extent. I've accepted that as I've aged.

I'm far more interested in character than I am in what someone believes and atheists aren't a like minded herd. Some do a lot of positive things for others, while some are rather self centered people. I've known all kinds of people who identify as atheists over the many years that I've been involved in real life atheist communities. I can say the same about the Christians I've known. Some are nasty, hateful people, while others are kind, generous people. Beliefs don't necessarily make us what we are. You do your thing and don't worry about what others think.

 

[Ruth Harris]

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.

And......here we go again. Painting all believers with the same tarred brush.

Yes, I am a Christian. No, I am not "uninformed and misinformed" or "superstitious, ignorant". I am a big believer in science. I admire scientists and educators tremendously for using their gifts to make our society better. I have spent my life learning about everything I could. And I am far from alone in the faith community. Unfortunately, the only religious people you hear about are the ones on the far right making fools of themselves in public, kind of like the only atheists you hear about are the ones who make big noises about how Christians are ignorant. Sadly, these are the exact people that wind up in positions of power since they know how to promote themselves as "the answer to our issues". My personal feelings are best stated by this - a pox on both of their houses!

You have made a common error in conflating religious belief with lack of scientific belief. The two are entirely separate; faith deals with the intangible and science deals with the tangible world around us. There is no conflict there.

Back to your original question - is it wrong for an atheist to debate a Christian apologist? Of course not. Both sides have to be willing for a debate to even occur. But you usually just see this happening between those on the fringe of each spectrum. Most of us find such debates to be boring, to be honest. The atheist says that the Christian is believing in fairy tales and not science, and the Christian says that the atheist has made science into their god. All they are doing is talking past each other since they aren't even discussing the same thing.

Ruth

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

And......here we go again. Painting all believers with the same tarred brush.

He said "CAN have" not "Will have."
Is it your belief that religious people will never have a a negative impact on science education?

 

[Ruth Harris]

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.

And......here we go again. Painting all believers with the same tarred brush.

He said "CAN have" not "Will have."
Is it your belief that religious people will never have a a negative impact on science education?

No, of course not. But that is not limited to just religious people; any fool in a position of power can have the same effect.

But you seem to have overlooked the rest of his quote: "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." He seems to think that religious people cause that.

Ruth

 

[Keith&Co.]

He said "CAN have" not "Will have."
Is it your belief that religious people will never have a a negative impact on science education?

No, of course not. But that is not limited to just religious people; any fool in a position of power can have the same effect.

But you seem to have overlooked the rest of his quote:

I didn't overlook it. I didn't quote it. Your mind-reading skills need work.

"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." He seems to think that religious people cause that.

"Seems to think" again. You could, maybe, ask him what he really thinks?
Or just LUMP HIM in with other opinions you object to, such as people who lump other people into big groups.

He still hasn't said that ALL religious people will ALWAYS lead to this, which is what you're objecting to. If you want him to give 'the other side' fair chance, you probably need to do the same thing you demand of him.

Just saying...

 

[Ruth Harris]

I didn't overlook it. I didn't quote it. Your mind-reading skills need work.

"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." He seems to think that religious people cause that.

"Seems to think" again. You could, maybe, ask him what he really thinks?
Or just LUMP HIM in with other opinions you object to, such as people who lump other people into big groups.

He still hasn't said that ALL religious people will ALWAYS lead to this, which is what you're objecting to. If you want him to give 'the other side' fair chance, you probably need to do the same thing you demand of him.

Just saying...

Mmm....maybe. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that the entirety of the quote should be considered when deciding someone's viewpoint. You cherry picked only one sentence; I considered the entire quote.

But okay, let's ask. Unknown Soldier, did you intend to infer that religious people as a whole are responsible for adverse impacts on science and education?

Ruth

 

[ideologyhunter]

"A meta-analysis and an updated analysis...found a measurable negative correlation between IQ and religiosity. The correlation was suggested to be a result of nonconformity, more cognitive and less intuitive thinking styles among the less religious."
- excerpted from the article Religiosity and intelligence on wikipedia. The whole article is worth reading and has citations one can follow, if one wishes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I didn't overlook it. I didn't quote it. Your mind-reading skills need work.

"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." He seems to think that religious people cause that.

"Seems to think" again. You could, maybe, ask him what he really thinks?
Or just LUMP HIM in with other opinions you object to, such as people who lump other people into big groups.

He still hasn't said that ALL religious people will ALWAYS lead to this, which is what you're objecting to. If you want him to give 'the other side' fair chance, you probably need to do the same thing you demand of him.

Just saying...

Mmm....maybe. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that the entirety of the quote should be considered when deciding someone's viewpoint.

"Context" still doesn't matter if you're going to project things into the post that aren't actually there.

I mean, there are millions of dumb people doing dumb shit out there RIGHT NOW, and acting superstitiously about vaccines and ivermectin, and i don't blame their religion NEARLY as much as i blame their politics.
So maybe there's another way to interpret the post you took so personally.

 

[Elixir]

It’s not the religious, it’s religions.
I was encouraged from early childhood to behave in a “Christian manner”. But not necessarily to be “a Christian”. (Was made to study at least a little of all major religions)
I can’t think of a religion that doesn’t include some good and some bad individuals. But I feel that on balance, organized religions are an evolutionary artifact, a useless vestigial limb and - if you’ll permit a religious metaphor - a curse upon humanity.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Mmm....maybe. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that the entirety of the quote should be considered when deciding someone's viewpoint.

"Context" still doesn't matter if you're going to project things into the post that aren't actually there.

I mean, there are millions of dumb people doing dumb shit out there RIGHT NOW, and acting superstitiously about vaccines and ivermectin, and i don't blame their religion NEARLY as much as i blame their politics.
So maybe there's another way to interpret the post you took so personally.

I explained my reasoning for understanding his quote the way I did. You think that I was reading something into it that wasn’t there – so I did ask him what he intended after you brought it up. No problem for me; I do want to correctly understand what someone is saying and would welcome his clarification. I did expect him to reply to my original post if I was wrong, in any event.

But I do object to your continued insistence that your understanding of his words is more valid than mine, until he clarifies this. You don’t have any more knowledge of what he thinks than I do. And to me, reading the whole quote, the inference seemed clear that he thought religious belief led to the adverse impacts he named. In this case, the context was everything. No mind-reading skills required.

No hard feelings on my part, but it would be nice if you would acknowledge that possibly I could be correct. I did not have to project anything into his words to draw my conclusion; all the elements of it were included in that single complete quote.

Ruth

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm old enough to remember this one time that Hillary Clinton warned us that a subset of Trump Followers were racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic.
A whole lot of people got upset that a presidential candidate called "all republicans" a basket of deplorables.
This is not what she said. One has to wonder why they took it personally.

 

[Ruth Harris]

I'm old enough to remember this one time that Hillary Clinton warned us that a subset of Trump Followers were racist, sexist, homophobic and xenophobic.
A whole lot of people got upset that a presidential candidate called "all republicans" a basket of deplorables.
This is not what she said. One has to wonder why they took it personally.

Ah – NOW I get what you are saying.

You think I used too broad a brush by saying that his quote smeared all believers. His post only specifically named believers. I was saying that his link between faith and adverse impacts on science or education was faulty. Those impacts are caused by multiple groups, including but not limited to right wing believers, politically focused science deniers, those that denigrate education as “unnecessary”, etc. To focus on only believers is to make a false connection between faith and ignorance. THAT is the source of my objection.

So let me make this very clear. Religious belief is far from the sole cause for the "uninformed and misinformed" or "superstitious, ignorant". Don’t target your angst against only the faith community. The vast majority of believers are firm supporters of education and scientists. In fact, the current head of the NIH is a devout Christian. He has a stellar reputation in the scientific community.

Call out all of the people who fight against an informed electorate or try to convince others that “too much education is dangerous”. Don’t propagate the misinformation that links these people to the faith community – they aren’t believers, for the most part. They are just fools or people who think they can use them to promote their standing in politics or the community.

Ruth

 

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I am not sure what an atheist is these days, but I see them as more moral and peace-loving and law abiding than the average genocidal, homophobic and misogynous god loving theist.

Statistics are clear on this.

If the more ill-informed and mentally lazy atheists are not more militant in fighting the evils the god religions continue to inflict on women and gays, the stats are over-rated and those atheists are no better than theists, regardless of belief.

Insert gays and women harmed by homophobic and misogynous religions to this quote. You should get an idea of what you should be doing with the homophobic and misogynous mainstream religions if you live by the golden rule.

Please get back to me with your conclusion.

Martin Niemöller
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Regards
DL

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I am not sure what an atheist is these days, but I see them as more moral and peace-loving and law abiding than the average genocidal, homophobic and misogynous god loving theist.

Statistics are clear on this.

If the more ill-informed and mentally lazy atheists are not more militant in fighting the evils the god religions continue to inflict on women and gays, the stats are over-rated and those atheists are no better than theists, regardless of belief.

Insert gays and women harmed by homophobic and misogynous religions to this quote. You should get an idea of what you should be doing with the homophobic and misogynous mainstream religions if you live by the golden rule.

Please get back to me with your conclusion.

Martin Niemöller
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Regards
DL

Well, when I debated the Christians at CARM, I criticized them and their religion for their gay-bashing and misogyny and other ills. I got in trouble there for doing so, and some atheists in another forum told me that I deserved it. They may be some of those ill-informed and mentally lazy atheists you mention here.

 

[Elixir]

Well, when I debated the Christians at CARM, I criticized them and their religion for their gay-bashing and misogyny and other ills. I got in trouble there for doing so …

If you were posting at CARM and NOT getting in trouble for it, you’re probably a YEC. Definitely doing it wrong, anyhow.
That lot is the most unsalvageable bunch of morons I ever ran across.

 

[abaddon]

Well, when I debated the Christians at CARM, I criticized them and their religion for their gay-bashing and misogyny and other ills. I got in trouble there for doing so, and some atheists in another forum told me that I deserved it...

What other forum? Who are these atheists who want atheists to shut up about religion yet don't hesitate criticizing atheism/atheists?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, when I debated the Christians at CARM, I criticized them and their religion for their gay-bashing and misogyny and other ills. I got in trouble there for doing so, and some atheists in another forum told me that I deserved it.

"Deserved it?" No idea why they'd say that.
You should have expected it.
You could have bet on it.
You should be proud of it. PosRep.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In fact, the current head of the NIH is a devout Christian. He has a stellar reputation in the scientific community.

Is he a good christian or a bad christian? It's like the good witch asking Dorothy if she was a witch and what kind. Of course Dorothy was biased against witches until she met Glinda.

Is the dude a very devout liberal christian? One person's devotion is another person's heresy, you know. That's the problem with unquantified labels when it comes to religious affiliation.

Do you really think it is possible to be scientifically literate and devoutly christian other than in claim only?

 

[Ruth Harris]

In fact, the current head of the NIH is a devout Christian. He has a stellar reputation in the scientific community.

Is he a good christian or a bad christian? It's like the good witch asking Dorothy if she was a witch and what kind. Of course Dorothy was biased against witches until she met Glinda.

Is the dude a very devout liberal christian? One person's devotion is another person's heresy, you know. That's the problem with unquantified labels when it comes to religious affiliation.

Do you really think it is possible to be scientifically literate and devoutly christian other than in claim only?

Decide for yourself where he stands in your view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

I can tell you that he really defies classification, as far as "liberal" or "conservative" goes in Christianity.

Yes, I think it is very possible to be both scientifically literate and devoutly Christian. There is nothing in science which precludes faith in God.

Ruth

 

[DBT]

Science doesn't work on the principle of faith.