AlterNet: Why It's So Tricky for Atheists to Debate with Believers

[marmar]

Why It's So Tricky for Atheists to Debate with Believers

By Greta Christina, AlterNet. Posted January 16, 2010.

Debates over faith often leave non-believers holding the bag: look like a jerk or leave the debate unfinished and apparently concede defeat.




In conversations between atheists and believers, is there any way atheists can win?

I've been in a lot of discussions and debates with religious believers in the last few years, and I'm beginning to notice a pattern. Believers put atheists in no-win situations, so that no matter what atheists do, we'll be seen as either acting like jerks or conceding defeat.

Like so many rhetorical gambits aimed at atheists, these "damned if you do, damned if you don't" tactics aren't really valid criticisms of atheism. They really only serve to deflect valid questions and criticisms about religion. But they come up often enough that I want to spend a little time pointing them out. I want to spell out the exact ways that these "no-win" situations are both unfair and inaccurate. And I want to point out the general nature of this no-win pattern—in hopes that in future debates with atheists, believers will be more aware of them, and will play a little more fairly.

When atheists focus our critiques on conservative or extremist religions, we get accused of ignoring the tolerant progressive ones and lumping all religions together. But when we do criticize progressive or moderate religions, we're accused of mean-spirited overkill, of alienating people who could be our allies.

Why this is untrue and unfair: It doesn't make much sense to assume that the atheist critique of religion you're reading that moment is the only atheist critique of religion this writer has ever come up with. Most atheist writers who criticize religion do so many times, and from many angles. We critique extremist fundamentalism, and moderate ecumenicalism. We critique specific religious beliefs and practices, and the general belief in the supernatural. It's not "lumping all religions together" to point out the flaws and hypocrisies and evils committed by one in particular. ...............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/belief/145172/why_it%27s_so_tricky_for_atheists_to_debate_with_believers

[trotsky]

1. This is a great paragraph:

We care about religion as it's believed and practiced by the overwhelming majority of people who believe it. By definition, those beliefs are not outdated. A belief in a personal interventionist creator god who answers prayers and doles out punishment and reward in the afterlife...that is not an outdated belief. It's what most believers believe in. Even belief in faith healing, demonic possession, magical objects and substances...these are still widespread, around the country and around the world. Heck, nearly half of all Americans believe in young-earth Creationism. When atheists battle these beliefs, we are not fighting straw men. We are fighting real beliefs and practices, with real effects on people's lives. And as it happens, many atheists are familiar with modern theology. And we're really not impressed. How much of it do we have to read before we're allowed to conclude that it makes no sense?

Good article. Thanks.

[Motown_Johnny]

2. You can't prove a negative

Trying to use critical thinking to prove that God does not exist is impossible. Arguing that point of view is doomed from the outset.

You need to argue that all the evidence that believers have for the existence of God can be explained with more rational explanations. At that point you can make your argument reasonably, but people who are able to believe what they want to believe still won't ever accept your point of view.

[skepticscott]

13. Hogwash

Can you use critical thinking to demonstrate that Santa Claus doesn't exist? Yes. Case closed.

Try again.

[MineralMan]

3. A good article.

I'm one of those atheists. All too often, when I post about self-styled Christians who lie and cheat and steal in the name of Jesus, I get slammed by Christians who would never do any such thing, as if I'm attacking them.

I do not care what people believe. Their beliefs, alone, have no affect on me, whatsoever. It is actions that affect me and others, not beliefs. I do not believe that any deities or other such supernatural entities exist. If I make that statement, I am not attacking anyone. I have my beliefs; others have different ones.

It is actions, and actions alone that cause me to criticize individuals and organizations, not Christian beliefs. While these individuals and organizations claim Christianity, they do not behave as if they even know the teachings attributed to this guy named Jesus (a name that didn't even exist in that region).

So, if I criticize someone who claims Christianity, I'm attacking nobody else's beliefs. Your beliefs are irrelevant.

And I'm still waiting for Christian leaders to repudiate Pat Robertson.

[patrice]

4. It doesn't make any sense to me that anyone would critique religion on whether it makes sense or not

[Jim__]

5. Can atheists win? Probably not; but then, neither can believers.

The question cannot be answered rationally at this point in time. People can debate the question, but it's doubtful that anyone's mind will be changed in a single debate.

As to her examples, I'm sure she has heard all of them in various debates. The question is, has the same person argued one way, and then turned around and argued the direct opposite. I don't think that happens very often; and the fact that there is more than one way to argue against any position she takes just emphasizes the complexity of the issue.

But, her examples are really pretty useless without specific context as to when various arguments have been made. Some of these arguments would be valid in one context and not in another.

[patrice]

8. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!~ Precisely!! They really should just stop talking to/about one another

They DO NOT speak the same language.

[SPedigrees]

6. I'm an atheist. Why anyone would want to debate personal beliefs is beyond me.

I'm offended if anyone pries into my personal beliefs. It is considered rude and overbearing around here... like asking someone how much money they make.

I don't want to change anyone's religious beliefs, and I do not tolerate anyone trying to discuss, much less change, my own belief system. The conversation is over as soon as any religious whacko asks a question or tries to engage me in such a discussion.

[skepticscott]

14. If people kept their beliefs "personal"

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you, but anyone who pays attention to politics knows that isn't what happens in reality. Religious believers use biblical literalism to justify enacting their "personal beliefs" as public policy, and forcing everyone else to adhere to them, no matter how nonsensical they are. When that happens, their "personal beliefs" become perfectly legitimate topics for debate, criticism and ridicule.

[Djarun]

18. How much money do you make, and who is your favorite god?!?

[rrneck]

7. Inspiration fail.

Discussions regarding faith really have nothing to do with verifiable facts or logical arguments. When believers try to express their faith using the language of deductive reasoning or source current theological thought on the subject they will always get savaged by an non believer. It happens every day right here. They are simply failing to inspire people.

When atheists are accused of proselytizing their atheism, they are actually being accused of not being inspirational.

People need to be inspired somehow. It doesn't matter two shits in a bucket how it gets done because the process is arational.

damn typos

[Demeter]

9. There's Nothing to Debate

Atheism isn't a totally faith-based mindset. It tends to have hard factual data to back it up. No religion can make that claim.

[guyton]

10. Respect ... or lack of it

I don't respect people that believe such nonsense, and they're not going to respect my opinions either.

Makes for a tough debate.

[guyton]

11. [deleted, double click accidental post]

[bemildred]

12. Why bother?

It's "faith based", reason has nothing to do with it. Why bother to "debate"?

[Duppers]

20. to educate, enlighten, and eliminate their special status in society, i.e....

Priests, preachers, religious organizations, etc. should not be afforded tax-exempt status.

They should not be able to use their religion beliefs to diminish or change the teaching of facts and real science in this country.

They affect my wallet. And when I've declare myself an out-of-the-closet atheist, they affected my social standing. Their bias affects my job opportunities.

I am expected to have the utmost respect for their beliefs, but they do not extend that to my facts.

There are tangible, practical ways in which "they" affect me directly and indirectly and I'm sick of humoring them.

As the article states:

There has never once been a marginalized group that has won recognition and rights by sitting back and waiting politely for it to happen. There has never once been a marginalized group that has won recognition and rights by doing anything other than speaking out, organizing, making itself visible and vocal. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed."



Essentially, just as with every other minority group in this country, many atheists aspire to gain status and respect. That's "why bother."

And as William Kingdon Clifford, the famous mathematician and evidentialist, said, "It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

[Duppers]

21. Bemildred

My rant is not directed at you personally, but I found your post an opportunity to inject my little rant.

If, say in h.s. or college, a course in logic and a course in religious history were required, there would be less brain-washed/religious people. People believe their faith is fact, when indeed is is not. That's the problem.

[bemildred]

27. OK.

I agree that broad education is the key to ending the prevalence of superstition and credulity. The ignorance of History, cultural History, where we came from and how we got here, in particular is pernicious. I am however, the last person to advocate anyone being forbidden to think as they choose, so long as they do not infringe the intellectual autonomy of others.

"I haven't got any special religion this morning. My God is the God of Walkers. If you walk hard enough, you probably don't need any other God."
– Bruce Chatwin "In Patagonia"

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
– Stephen F. Roberts

[struggle4progress]

15. "Philosophers have solved the world, but the point is to change it" - Marx, 1845

Perhaps the most common feature of "debates" between "atheists" and "believers" is total sterility of the conversation. One ought not generalize too much from this, since "atheists" and "believers" eager for such "debate" may not represent in any meaningful way the majority of persons who might call themselves "atheists" or "believers." The "debaters" attribute a special importance to their own views, compelling them to explain endlessly just how wrong everyone else is. As a result, the "debates" have a dreary and wearisome character, consisting largely of various persons in sequence crafting various sentences for their own ears and feeling misunderstood or outraged that no one else is as charmed by them as they are by themselves. Since the resulting continuous jabber is often predictable and circular, not everyone find it particularly rewarding to hear

[winyanstaz]

16. I am not religious...I am very spiritual though..

I am not into organized religions and I am particularly not interesting in worshiping a God that has to have human beings murder other human beings for him. Any God that can't strike down those that piss him off is a piss-poor excuse for a God.
Nor do I hold any respect for a God that has to sit around and watch his child be tortured and murdered before he can bring himself to forgive the rest of his kids...that he made in the first place and if he was "all-knowing" then he already knows who is the bad guys and who isn't and what they will chose.
If he wasn't "God" we would be having to throw his ass in jail as a rotten parent that sat around allowing murder of his only "begotten" child..(who by the way he never paid any child support for).
And last but not least...I am not a cannibal and I don't want to eat Jesus's body...or drink his blood. Thanks anyway but I have already had lunch....it might sound good to you but I will pass.
I do believe Jesus was God awake (knew he was God )..but then again...I believe YOU are an aspect of God/Goddess too.. as well as everyone and everything else in the universe.
If there is anything or anyone that is outside of God/not of God, beyond God, or apposed to God...then God is NOT all powerful and all knowing and omniscient.
You cant have it both ways...either he/she is everything and everyone (God has no sex but is ALL sexes)...or there is no God.
It's also no skin off my nose what others believe or not.
Flame on................................................:rofl:

[veganlush]

17. faith means deciding to beleive something that is not supported

..by the facts, by the evidence. To believe is a choice. Atheism is in itself a belief. It is claiming to know somehow, that there is no "god". The fact is, we all have access to the same evidence, the same data, and it's insufficient evidence for either case. the closest thing to an honest assessment is to say you do not know the origin of the universe. There, a said it, that was easy.

[TransitJohn]

25. LOL...you lose.

Atheism is in itself a belief.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzt. Sorry, thanks for playing.

[Chef Eric]

26. Please don't try to speak for me. I'm an atheist, but I don't claim to know that there is no god.

While it's true that I see no reason to believe in a god, the most important thing is that I couldn't care less if there is a god or there isn't. I don't have the time to ponder about a god any more than I have the time to ponder about aliens from other planets. It serves no purpose.

[proteus_lives]

19. These debates are often the most pointless.

One side can't prove God exists and the other side can't prove that he doesn't exist.

So, nine times out of ten it quickly becomes a pissing match.

[pokercat999]

23. Except that the responsibility to prove their belief is on the

side that has the claim. They claim there IS a god....so prove it, demonstrate it with scientific evidence that can be seen, felt, heard, otherwise it's a superstition and is as valid as expecting bad fortune for seven years after breaking a mirror. Can't prove it, then it doesn't exist and is a theory. So they have a theory of a god derived from fictional writings based on some historical facts. So again....prove it or I'll call you what you are, a conman.

[elleng]

22. For neither is there anything about which to debate.

DON'T BOTHER!

[Festivito]

24. It seems like a bunch of straw argument dribbling.

Which amounts to a bad arguer complaining about bad arguing.

I would like to point out to the writer that the pet peeve is most likely to be the weakest spot, not the strongest and most clear of arguments.

I think the real problem atheists have in debate, if they do have a problem, is a lack of humility. And, that goes the same for those debating for a god. The two stances begin on the premise of being opposites rather than two stances that seem to oppose each other.

Any debate either attempts to reveal this, or it degrades into name calling or a morass of words.