I've been preparing myself as though I would debate a theist with debate skills for several months now. I went through most of the common arguments and researched numerous subjects that might come up and thought about different strategies on how to win such a debate. I will likely rarely, if ever, actually engage, but just in case I want to be on point. I'm careful with my words and the direction of the dialogue and I'm fairly confident, however I think that what I'm missing is practice. Perhaps someone here could step into theist shoes (especially Christian) and have a skirmish of sorts... Or any helpful advice that I may not have heard before would be great as well. What say you atheist republic?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Try decaf! Debating believers is easy. Welcome!
I'm with chimp3. If you have to prepare than you don't know what you are talking about in the first place.
I take theist on cold and have no trouble shooting down anything that they throw at me
A person whose objective is to win debates, as opposed to seeking truth, is rather like a person who throws stones at the sea. They can make big, impressive splashes and draw satisfaction from hitting a target that can't easily be missed. But, the sea merely absorbs the energy, the tides still go in and out, the waves still lap the shore. And after the ripples die away, the sea remains untouched.
The enquirer doesn't throw stones at the sea. He stands and watches other people doing it, and wonders why they feel the need.
You do not have to have great intellectual skills. Mockery, satire, and plain rudeness are also effective tools. Religion is ridiculous so do not be afraid to harshly point that out.
I respect your point of view, Chimp3. I just don't share it, that's all. As for my intellectual skills, I don't claim to have any. I'm not a highly educated man, I'm not a scholar, I never went to university. I'm just an observer of life with his own take on it. And I'm entirely comfortable with that. If other people aren't comfortable with it, that's their problem and not mine.
If CyberLN tells me that she's unhappy with the things I write about, then I'll pack it in and leave. But I'm not going to take that from anyone else, so until she does, I'm staying.
Keith Raye: Let me clarify! I usually don't attack the individual with rudeness (unless they say something really sick). I meant to attack the ideas rudely or satirically. The Biblical Creation story, Noah's Ark, Muhammed on a flying horse all deserve mockery as ideas.
Chimp3: Thanks for that. So let me clarify too. I realised, after reading your post again, that your comment probably wasn't aimed at me at all, but at the OP. If so, my apologies for sounding off at you like that. It might help, too, to explain that I'm autistic. I sometimes have difficulty, not in understanding what other people are saying, but why they say it. Similarly, it's not how things work that puzzle me, but why they do. I'm not putting that up as a defence, but simply stating a fact. It may be that my autism is in some ways a disability, but it also possibly gives me a unique take on some things. I can't express my myself verbally so I do it in writing, which is the reason I write novels. And I always have difficulty 'reading' people when I meet them face to face.
OK Keith!
@Keith Raye
I actually read and learned more about autistic people fairly recently. Their was a vice news weekly episode that talked about advancements in helping autistic people. They showed a new computer program that would help autistic people learn to read facial expressions and other social cues.
These boards are confusing at times, sometimes glitches also make it look like one person replied to someone else in the chronological order they are listed, when in fact they were intending to reply to a completely different post. Especially in long threads with multiple conversations going on. On longer threads I actually try to make a point of using @"person I am replying to."
I also want to point out, in reading your stuff here I had no idea you were autistic.
@ LogicForTW
It's not something I generally talk about. I'd rather be seen as just another guy, you know? Besides, autism declines with age and it isn't anything like as bad now as it was when I was younger. I didn't even know I was autistic then, and I don't think anyone else did either. The hashtag's a good idea.
And there you go again, Keith Raye. You are not the police of the forum. Are you not capable of understanding what chimp3 is saying. He/she mocks the idea, not the person. For crying out loud!!!!
Mykob4: I'm not trying to, as you put it 'police the forum', I'm simply trying to put over my own point of view, in my own way like everyone else does. It's not what you say that sometimes irritates me, it's your acerbic style. But I'm not saying you don't have a right to express yourself that way, simply that I'm puzzled by it.
@Aposteriori Unum
As others said, debating theist is easy. To me their arguments stem from just a few base concepts that they attempt to modify and change as it is shot down.
1. Arguments from their holy book, (sometimes also: prophesies that supposedly were written before the event occurred.)
2. First mover/cause/creation argument (it has many names but is the same argument.)
3. Intelligent design (complexity argument.)
4. Occasionally, religious artifacts, shroud of turin, dead sea scrolls, etc.
5. Their religion is great. (not really an argument, but an opinion piece they like to argue about.)
I assume you already have the information how to easily show all of the above four arguments are deeply flawed. If not I can give you a quick run down.
Debating someone is never easy. What's easy is patting yourself on the back thinking you won the debate, despite the other person being thoroughly convinced you didn't. At which point you conclude the other person is deluded, and you walk away thinking that winning debates is easy.
I am familiar with many arguments and how to counter them. Users have said that it's easy and I agree, but I care a lot about not using flawed arguments or misinformation, even if they don't realize it. I solicited for practice because it's the only thing(I think) I don't have. Most people aren't even equipped to deal with it; to defend their beliefs... It's for the ones that are.
I personally do not think I really "win" any of the debates. Maybe score some "points" sometimes.
I actually prefer the debate, not the end of it, I do not keep a score in my head; "oh me 7 points, him 8 points, oh, I think I lost this one." I like to make my argument and see how people respond. Arguing with theist is fun in part simply because I know it is very likely the theist will come back with a counter response rather than simply agreeing. I like to find out points we agree on what points we don't, then go and debate on those points as the debate continues.
I agree with Logic, I rejoice in debate per se . When I debate, it's not about winning, I just try to improve my reasoning process and expression, to become more empathetic to other points of views, and when possible, find agreements and disagreements. And I love the bittersweet sensation of being refuted with great arguments, when someone gets to force you to think something over...
Patronizing, mockery and ad hominem are not debate tools but the best ways to end a debate and maybe engage in a fight... And I know sometimes we can't help it, especially when the other person is too blinkered... But if your goal is to convince, or to improve your debate skills, these tools aren't the best choice.
Watch some debates on Youtube on Atheism, especially the part of questions from the audience, to know which kinds of questions you could come across. And read this forum!
Very well said. You said it better then I could :)
Thanks, Logic :))
Aposteoiori- I'm in
I doubt that you are Sinner. This person is classically educated and way over your head. Read the definition of "Unum" and "Aposteriori". You can't even get his moniker right. It's not "Aposteoiori" it's "Aposteriori". Have you read his Twitter page? He'll shred you, just like I did only more so!
If you can be Christian and bring your best arguments for Christianity I will engage. Email at phantomx222@gmail.com.
It's hard to defend if you believe it, but it might be even harder if you don't. If you need time to read your C. S. Lewis or your William Lane Craig or your Frank Turek books then you have it. If not then I'll be checking my email for an opening. If that's not what you meant by"I'm in" let me know.
I've never really been a fan of debates since my goal is to learn not to pretend I know things. I'm not going to email you, but you can inbox me here and we can battle it out.
I do want to set a few rules however:
1. Each response cannot be longer than 300 words. Your OP for example was about 125 words. If it takes you more than 300 words to make a point, odds are you don't know what you're talking about
2. No more than one reference per response. This limit is intended to prevent you from losing sight of the conversation, and from posting a bunch of links I have neither the time nor interest to read. You may reference published books, religious literature, classic literature or scientific journals. You may not use Wikipedia, or any article that cannot be found using an academic database. I prefer APA style for your citations, but MLA is fine as well.
3. Limit of one question per response. By that I mean each response is allowed to asked the other person one question. This is intended to once again, keep the conversation concise and specific. This is a debate not a questionnaire, or an interrogation. Asking questions is easy, giving answers is harder. Debates should focus on giving the better answer, not asking the most questions.
If you have another rule say so now.
Hey, no inbox messages or mails! We want to read that debate!!!
I accept your rules and have none to add. Shall you kick it off?
Shred me! Mykcbbibk- dude, you're out- plz let us debate respectfully. Practice your factual history and get back to us. Thanks!
Sinner: I think that 'respect' includes being factual. Peddling deliberate untruths disrespects the people you are debating with.
@Sinner
Again with the childish ridicule of my moniker, or is it just too difficult for you to get correct?
"...get back to us"? So you are here under the instruction of someone else. I knew it. Apologist like you never come here honestly or without an agenda dictated to them by some "spiritual leader".
I don't NEED to "practice". I have learned history that hasn't been revised and perverted by religious politics.
Keith - provide 1 example where I misled or presented untruthful info.
I don't need to. I have no interest in debating for debate's sake alone. You may well feel that you have something to prove, but I don't. I'm perfectly comfortable with my own philosophy. I feel no need to seek approbation, or to salve my own conscience or insecurity through evangelism in any of it's forms. I'll leave that to people like you. If you want a fight , try Mykob4 or Aposteriori Unum - I'm sure both of those gentlemen would be only too happy to oblige you. Me, I can't be bothered with it, I've got better things to do with my life.
It's quite clear to me now, that Mykob4 was right in the first place. You're not a serious student of the history of religion, your knowledge of such things in no way matches that of the two gentlemen mentioned above. You may not even be a committed Christian for all I know. What I do know is this. Those other two I've mentioned, and others on this site, are far more qualified than I am to argue such points. But in me, you have someone who far outweighs you in life experience. You do this for kicks, don't you? That's why I refuse to play your game. I'll put it very bluntly - I'm not going to stroke your cock for you Sinner, you''ll have to find someone else to do that.
Pages