Do atheists think that debating Christian apologists is wrong?

[Jarhyn]

I agree that debate can devolve into a "talking contest," but I think it is often more than that. Some people will listen to reason and accept information. I know I do, and when I listen to a debate, I often agree with some of what the party I don't usually agree with argues. If I'm not sure something either debater says is true or false, then I do some fact checking. So if debate is considered that way, then you can learn a lot from it. Debates also allow people of different positions to immediately respond to the other side's objections. It can be illuminating to see how objections are handled that way.

When I was a child I thought as a child and did childish things. When I grew up I put those childish things away.

When I was a child I was taken advantage of by people who said things that were either false or unreasonable about me not sure how to respond effectively to defend myself or what I was saying. When I grew up and learned how to debate effectively, I put the childish and false claims of others away into the trash where they belong.

Knowing that debate (and rhetoric in general, free of logic) is by definition not a mode of discussion that is likely to yield answers. Rhetoric is something to be studied and understood surely, mut mostly so as to tear it up and throw it in the trash where it belongs, so as to undergird oneself with sturdier stuff.

It sucks that people abused you with rhetoric. It can even FEEL bad when people tear you apart with (not-rhetoric). The point is to recognize the difference between rhetorical modes and reasonable ones.

In any situation of conflict one or more people are wrong.

Of course there is a lot more complexity that is being run roughshod over for the heart of the point, but there it is: the reliance on rhetoric rather than reason is a scourge to be shamed out of existence. It is something to practice disarming and deconstructing, not originating.

 

[Wiploc]

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

When I was a Christian and even when I was an atheist, I was OK with debating. Then I realized the dubiousness of debate in general. Debate is a competition of rhetoric, not of reason.

When I was a child I thought as a child and did childish things. When I grew up I put those childish things away.

I guess you win this round.

 

[jab]

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

You misread the post: its first statement about religion is built around a subjunctive verb, not a declarative verb: "the adverse impact it [religious belief] can have on education especially science education." Thus the possibility you outline is actually allowed for in Unknown Soldier's statement of concern. Your statement is expanding on one area of their statement, but not contradicting or correcting it.

 

[jab]

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

You inferred; you are asking him if he meant to imply.

 

[jab]

Science doesn't work on the principle of faith.

Faith in God does not work on scientific principles. Love doesn't work on scientific principles either. Does that invalidate love? Both are intangible concerns; science is involved with tangible concerns. I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that science will never prove or disprove faith, any more than it can prove or disprove love. That is not the sphere of science. Likewise, faith or love will never prove or disprove science.

Ruth

Faith by definition is a belief held without the support of evidence. Science requires evidence.

That is what I just said. One is tangible, one is intangible. So there is no conflict there as they are concerned with different spheres.

Define intangible, define spheres. Otherwise, I infer that you are perhaps writing nonsense.

 

[jab]

I agree that debate can devolve into a "talking contest," but I think it is often more than that. Some people will listen to reason and accept information. I know I do, and when I listen to a debate, I often agree with some of what the party I don't usually agree with argues. If I'm not sure something either debater says is true or false, then I do some fact checking. So if debate is considered that way, then you can learn a lot from it. Debates also allow people of different positions to immediately respond to the other side's objections. It can be illuminating to see how objections are handled that way.

When I was a child I thought as a child and did childish things. When I grew up I put those childish things away.

When I was a child I was taken advantage of by people who said things that were either false or unreasonable about me not sure how to respond effectively to defend myself or what I was saying. When I grew up and learned how to debate effectively, I put the childish and false claims of others away into the trash where they belong.

Knowing that debate (and rhetoric in general, free of logic) is by definition not a mode of discussion that is likely to yield answers. Rhetoric is something to be studied and understood surely, mut mostly so as to tear it up and throw it in the trash where it belongs, so as to undergird oneself with sturdier stuff.

It sucks that people abused you with rhetoric. It can even FEEL bad when people tear you apart with (not-rhetoric). The point is to recognize the difference between rhetorical modes and reasonable ones.

In any situation of conflict one or more people are wrong.

Of course there is a lot more complexity that is being run roughshod over for the heart of the point, but there it is: the reliance on rhetoric rather than reason is a scourge to be shamed out of existence. It is something to practice disarming and deconstructing, not originating.

I think the OP refers to various occasions of argument, not merely to formal debate. When i first joined this board, I did a lot of arguing on the religious fora, but over time I got bored as the same arguments kept repeating. I don't go to religious groups and argue with them, but if any religious person or group directly importunes me I will tell them as best and politely as I can why they are wrong.