To non-theists: Why discuss and debate?

G

greenberg

until the end of the world
Registered Senior Member
This has come up in another thread, but I find it is something that needs more attention:


Why do non-theists engage in dicsussions with theists?
What is hoped for?
What is to be gained?

Do non-theists think that if they outargue the theists, the theists will leave them alone?

Do non-theists think that if they outargue the theists, the theists will admit the error of their ways and change?
 
greenberg said:
Why do non-theists engage in dicsussions with theists?
Click to expand...

It gives really good insight into human needs, motivations, and values.


greenberg said:
What is hoped for?
What is to be gained?
Click to expand...

Better understanding of human behavior.


greenberg said:
Do non-theists think that if they outargue the theists, the theists will leave them alone?
Click to expand...

Nope.

greenberg said:
Do non-theists think that if they outargue the theists, the theists will admit the error of their ways and change?
Click to expand...

A few will and most wont.
 
greenberg said:
This has come up in another thread, but I find it is something that needs more attention:

Why do non-theists engage in dicsussions with theists?
What is hoped for?
What is to be gained?

Do non-theists think that if they outargue the theists, the theists will leave them alone?

Do non-theists think that if they outargue the theists, the theists will admit the error of their ways and change?
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: IMO, the two groups have little in common, but I don't think there is a problem with who engages whom in the discussion of belief and/or non-belief. I think it is more likely that it is theists who engage (i.e. provoke) atheists into discussions. Atheists already know the dialog. From the dialog on this forum, I think the theists are on a "scorch-the-earth" mission to convert atheists, and the atheists responses mostly point out theists' fallacious beliefs. As for atheists trying to convert theists to non-belief, that is not possible to do. Reaching the state of non-belief cannot be preached, pressured nor provoked. Becoming an atheist is a personal journey which usually requires many years of solid reading, research and revelation. However, to answer your question, "Why do non-theists engage in dicsussions with theists?", I suspect that it might be a desire to question or to learn more about the opposing position. In the case of atheists wanting to learn more about theists' viewpoint, it amounts to re-educating them. When theists engage atheists in dialog, it's because their aim is to convert us to their viewpoint. In short, atheists aim to re-educate and theists aim to convert.

"What is hoped for?", certainly not a mutual ground! I don't think there is one. Although it is possible to reach a mutual agreement on each one's right to his/her own belief, it is never right to force one's own belief on another. Atheists cannot be blamed for doing such a thing. There is nothing atheists can do to "convert" the religious. All we can do is re-educate those who have been lied to. We can't bring them to atheism nor is that our goal.

"What is to be gained?", I think mutual understanding of the opposition's viewpoint. However, most atheists I would think came out of christianity or some other religion, so our knowledge of the opposition's viewpoint is pretty well established. The truth is that atheists know more about christianity that its own adherents do! I am specifically using christianity as an example, because that's what I evolved from. Other than a mutual understanding, and hopefully a re-education, I don't think there is much more to be gained.

As we all can see on the Religion forum, both sides go 'round and 'round. One main difference is the approach to each side's belief. Becoming an atheist can take years and years, almost a life time of learning, but to become a christian (and most are born into it and, therfore, have no choice), all one needs to do is be slam dunked in a pool of water and voila they've gained entrance to a place that was never there! It's that instantaneous! So, which side carries with it the most logical and reasonable philosophy? Freedom from oppression, mis-education, and force fed lies is what is to be gained when the two sides converse.
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote of the Day:

"All thinking men are atheists." ~ Ernest Hemingway
 
It's an internet forum, plain and simple.

The atheist and the theist, whoever they are, can be locked in battle until the second coming of *insert deity*, and still come out not qualified the "Master de Bater"

It is, instead, for the many peeps of the internet to read the thoughts of others and gain some insight into what drives unfounded beliefs and claims, and how difficult it is to substantiate them.

And besides, some here, through these very same discussions, have lost interest in their cults ideals and are preferring a more rationale approach to their worldview.

Very productive, imo.
 
I enjoy a good debate as long as it is respectful and the other side can hold his/her own. On the other hand, if I'm blindly attacked and criticized, I'll glady debate until I have rolled over who I'm talking too.

Just don't approach me with ignorant claims you can't back up, and then refuse to listen to me, or assume I'm ignorant for not believing what you believe. I'm very accepting of other beliefs and I do learn a lot when I discuss those beliefs and mine with someone else.
 
Once in a while I learn something through the debate.
Now and again I learn a little about how to debate.

But most of the time I find it's just an interesting view on the human condition. The interesting debates are those that challenges the theist to their notion of what God means to them. Oh they still believe in something but usually not the same God that they used to believe in. The debates on freewill and all knowing and all powerful are interesting in that aspect.
 
Greenberg

We can learn a lot about our neighbors of every stripe, even the annoyingly dishonest ones, by engaging them. For instance, today I happened to see something that gave me a shiver. One of the most ridiculous things I've seen is the practice of "Bible paraphrasing", in which a book is written to tell the story of the Bible without using the words of the Bible. In other words, it is a book intended to tell us what the Bible means. I've complained before about Jack Blanco's Clear Word, in fact giving it credit for so twisting one a conundrum about Genesis 3 as to hand the atheists a piece of rhetoric many have wondered about, that this whole redemption thing is, in fact, a racket. But today I saw a copy of The Clear Word for Kids. So the first thing I did was turn to this puzzling passage, and found that on one important point it disagrees with the Bible. In any English translation of the Bible, God expresses a concern in Genesis 3.22-23 that man has become "like one of us", and frets that if they get their hands on the fruit of the Tree of Life, humans would become like God.

I asked the Christian who owned the book about that point. He answered a different question, including the unbiblical assertion that Adam and Eve were scheduled to live forever.
 
greenberg said:
This has come up in another thread, but I find it is something that needs more attention:


Why do non-theists engage in dicsussions with theists?
What is hoped for?
What is to be gained?

Do non-theists think that if they outargue the theists, the theists will leave them alone?

Do non-theists think that if they outargue the theists, the theists will admit the error of their ways and change?
Click to expand...

Whether theist or not, it is always good to debate. It helps others understand the world around them, even if they don't agree with it.
 
Tiassa said:
We can learn a lot about our neighbors of every stripe, even the annoyingly dishonest ones, by engaging them.
Click to expand...

But why do that - why seek to learn about other people?

I mean, I do it too. But recently I've been seriously wondering about the use of such endeavors.
 
greenberg said:
But why do that - why seek to learn about other people?

I mean, I do it too. But recently I've been seriously wondering about the use of such endeavors.
Click to expand...
in short, internet discussion is too ethereal to manifest anything too substantial - real communication (beyond issues such as "pick me up from the airport next week") requires body language, etc etc - even many relatively straight forward administrative issues need to be discussed in a (real life) conference setting.

What can be gained from such things is basically just a honing of one's presentations of the issues. I have gained something (even from people's trite obnoxiousness in the face of philosophical discussion) that has helped me when I am presenting these sorts of things in the "real world" (what to speak of when persons actually offer legitimate supports/challenges)
 
To learn, and to gain more insight into their beliefs and those of others.
And since learning is fun for me, then I do it for fun.
 
Gondolin said:
Just don't approach me with ignorant claims you can't back up, and then refuse to listen to me, or assume I'm ignorant for not believing what you believe. I'm very accepting of other beliefs and I do learn a lot when I discuss those beliefs and mine with someone else.
Click to expand...


I concur. The only thing worse than an idiot is an idiot who can't back themselves up.
 
greenberg,

The same question could be asked why did we fight a war against Hitler. He had his ideas about what the world should look like and who should rule, why oppose him?

The same is true about theists, if they are allowed to impose their views and ideas on everyone else then mankind will be doomed to revert to the dark ages.

Obvious malignancy must be opposed and since theists have never been able to make a credible case for their views then we are duty bound to re-educate them for the sake of mankind.
 
greenberg said:
This has come up in another thread, but I find it is something that needs more attention:


Why do non-theists engage in dicsussions with theists?
What is hoped for?
What is to be gained?

Do non-theists think that if they outargue the theists, the theists will leave them alone?

Do non-theists think that if they outargue the theists, the theists will admit the error of their ways and change?
Click to expand...

I enjoy arguing with people. So I do it. That's why the majority of people are here at SciForums I assume.
 
Only if the argument is civil and constructive and educated; otherwise, it degenerates, as usual, into a shit flinging contest.

Anyway, I think it has to do with the impact that religion has on our society. Since the tooth fairy has little impact on the lives of people, there is no point in disproving or attacking the idea; however, religion does impact many things, and this is perhaps why atheists argue.

Now, I'm a theist but I do understand the atheist perspective.
 
Why do non-theists engage in dicsussions with theists?
What is hoped for?
What is to be gained?
Click to expand...
Seems like around here most of those discussions are started by theists. So the accounting belongs with them, in the first place.

But taking the abstract view, that it doesn't matter who started things: one possibility is that many atheists - especially the argumentative sort - trace their awakening to some such discussion. They do hope to change minds, as they recall their own being changed.

Another motive, among some, would be wariness - some of the more experienced or educated atheist types have an idea of what can happen if certain kinds of nonsense are allowed to dominate the public discourse unchallenged and without having to account for themselves.

A third common factor is that the version of theism invoked interferes with some other topic under discussion - a lot of the anti-Darwinian BS files here. So someone interested in the evolutionary role of homosexuality in human society often finds themselves having to swat theistic assertions willy nilly. Likewise someone analyzing US political issues and demographics.
norse said:
Now, I'm a theist but I do understand the atheist perspective.
Click to expand...
First you need to understand is that there is no such thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top