Atheists Are Such Lousy Debaters

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, the point is that while you believe yourself to be 100% correct, I also believe the same about my position. And as neither of us is a likely convert, this leaves no room for debate of any kind - nor even discussion - unless one or both of us is willing to be open-minded about the other person's beliefs. I think it was Aristotle who praised the ability to understand someone's point of view without accepting it yourself: this is what I am advocating, and what I ultimately mean by open-mindedness.

I never said there was anything wrong attempting to understand what someone is saying that is not how the term "openmindedness" is typically used. Usually being "openminded" where these types of discussions are concerned means being open to the possibility that there are more than one way to God. Usually it is not athesists that are so bent making the "opendminded" argument as it is those of other relgions who seek to have us believe that their religions are on par with Christianity.

Typically, what I see coming here (and I am speaking in a general sense) are arrogant athesists coming here with false, preconceived notions about Christians and can't even quote the Bible properly when they are making their case. They come to boards like this one looking for Christians they view as easy prey, who are not scientists who are mostly just regular people, not scholars. They make unrealistic demands of us, and then pretend they have won some type of victory because we did not have an answer to a unreasonable question that no one would possibly have an answer to. Frankly from what I have seen on this board, atheists are lousy debators. They frame our faith incorrectly, assign motives and values to us that we do not hold to and then that as platform for criticism.

[secondeve]

Shiloh, the point is that while you believe yourself to be 100% correct, I also believe the same about my position. And as neither of us is a likely convert, this leaves no room for debate of any kind - nor even discussion - unless one or both of us is willing to be open-minded about the other person's beliefs. I think it was Aristotle who praised the ability to understand someone's point of view without accepting it yourself: this is what I am advocating, and what I ultimately mean by open-mindedness.

I never said there was anything wrong attempting to understand what someone is saying that is not how the term "openmindedness" is typically used. Usually being "openminded" where these types of discussions are concerned means being open to the possibility that there are more than one way to God. Usually it is not athesists that are so bent making the "opendminded" argument as it is those of other relgions who seek to have us believe that their religions are on par with Christianity.

Typically, what I see coming here (and I am speaking in a general sense) are arrogant athesists coming here with false, preconceived notions about Christians and can't even quote the Bible properly when they are making their case. They come to boards like this one looking for Christians they view as easy prey, who are not scientists who are mostly just regular people, not scholars. They make unrealistic demands of us, and then pretend they have won some type of victory because we did not have an answer to a unreasonable question that no one would possibly have an answer to. Frankly from what I have seen on this board, atheists are lousy debators. They frame our faith incorrectly, assign motives and values to us that we do not hold to and then that as platform for criticism.

I understand your frustration; and were I go back through your second paragraph and replace the word 'Christians' with 'atheists,' you'd have a pretty good idea of how we get pidgenholed in debates, too. Your last comment - the mention of being assigned motives and values that one does not actually hold, and then being criticised for them - is a very accurate description of the vast bulk of my conversations with Christians about atheism. All atheism is, at the end of the day, is a lack of belief in all and any gods. Beyond that lack, it implies no adherence to a set moral, political, social, scientific or ethical philosophy - and yet in discussions pertaining to such diverse points as these, atheists are continually lumped together as a single herd. Atheism is dubbed a 'religion' or 'faith' by some Christians when, contextually, the notion is absurd: a single commonality of thought with no supporting moral/social framework does not religion make. It is widely assumed that all atheists accord with the theory of evolution; that we are all in favour of pre-marital sex, homosexuality and abortion; that we are irrevocably politically left wing; that we live spiritually empty lives (due to our lack of a relationship with God); that we are ignorant; and that we are, at core, amoral (because we do not have the Bible to guide us).

[Fraught]

She can afford to be closedminded, 'cause she's right.

Closemindedness is never justified. If you're right, then there's nothing to lose by being open-minded; and if you're wrong, there's everything to gain.

Closemindedness can be quite justified. There are still those who believe the earth is flat and as result reject any notion that man has been to outerspace.

Why would I need to be openminded toward them about their assertion that the earth is flat? There are lots of other issues about which closemindedness toward any other position is quite justified.

I can afford to be closeminded where God is concerned, because I know Him, and He knows me. If you tried to convince me God does not exist, it would be analagous to me trying to convice your friends that you are just a figment of their overactive imagination.

that doesnt mean that some people dont have friend who are 100% figments of their imagination..it just means you refuse to look at any ideas contrary to what you beleive..and doesnt make you or the people who have imaginary friends at 55..any less crazy

are you saying that having an imaginary friend does not make someone crazy?

i wouldn't use the word crazy but they would definitely be a little out of touch with reality. i don't see what this has to do with anything anyway unless you are insinuating that shiloh, myself and others have not looked at contrary ideas. which we certainly have in order to come to our decision.

[Fraught]

Shiloh, the point is that while you believe yourself to be 100% correct, I also believe the same about my position. And as neither of us is a likely convert, this leaves no room for debate of any kind - nor even discussion - unless one or both of us is willing to be open-minded about the other person's beliefs. I think it was Aristotle who praised the ability to understand someone's point of view without accepting it yourself: this is what I am advocating, and what I ultimately mean by open-mindedness.

I never said there was anything wrong attempting to understand what someone is saying that is not how the term "openmindedness" is typically used. Usually being "openminded" where these types of discussions are concerned means being open to the possibility that there are more than one way to God. Usually it is not athesists that are so bent making the "opendminded" argument as it is those of other relgions who seek to have us believe that their religions are on par with Christianity.

Typically, what I see coming here (and I am speaking in a general sense) are arrogant athesists coming here with false, preconceived notions about Christians and can't even quote the Bible properly when they are making their case. They come to boards like this one looking for Christians they view as easy prey, who are not scientists who are mostly just regular people, not scholars. They make unrealistic demands of us, and then pretend they have won some type of victory because we did not have an answer to a unreasonable question that no one would possibly have an answer to. Frankly from what I have seen on this board, atheists are lousy debators. They frame our faith incorrectly, assign motives and values to us that we do not hold to and then that as platform for criticism.

I understand your frustration; and were I go back through your second paragraph and replace the word 'Christians' with 'atheists,' you'd have a pretty good idea of how we get pidgenholed in debates, too. Your last comment - the mention of being assigned motives and values that one does not actually hold, and then being criticised for them - is a very accurate description of the vast bulk of my conversations with Christians about atheism. All atheism is, at the end of the day, is a lack of belief in all and any gods. Beyond that lack, it implies no adherence to a set moral, political, social, scientific or ethical philosophy - and yet in discussions pertaining to such diverse points as these, atheists are continually lumped together as a single herd. Atheism is dubbed a 'religion' or 'faith' by some Christians when, contextually, the notion is absurd: a single commonality of thought with no supporting moral/social framework does not religion make. It is widely assumed that all atheists accord with the theory of evolution; that we are all in favour of pre-marital sex, homosexuality and abortion; that we are irrevocably politically left wing; that we live spiritually empty lives (due to our lack of a relationship with God); that we are ignorant; and that we are, at core, amoral (because we do not have the Bible to guide us).

maybe this is not the place, maybe it belongs in a new topic but i would love to ask you a question. understand me, i have no agenda in mind but i would like to know how you may mention being amoral in your description. if there is no God that upholds the good, then how can there even exist any such thing as morality. it seems to me there must be an overarching moral law in place in order to decide what is moral and what isn't. what human being would be able to decide what this law is supposed to be? if i imagine that all people are atheists, who decides what is moral and what isn't? would there be laws against lying or cheating or being selfish? what exactly is good and how do we know it's good. does it all come down to what's best for the continuation of society? what is the good of the continuation of society and which society anyway? american society, so that we can keep on riding the hamster wheel of working to live and living to work?

sorry about the rant, but when i imagine all that, the questions just don't end for me.

[Grungekid]

Shiloh, the point is that while you believe yourself to be 100% correct, I also believe the same about my position. And as neither of us is a likely convert, this leaves no room for debate of any kind - nor even discussion - unless one or both of us is willing to be open-minded about the other person's beliefs. I think it was Aristotle who praised the ability to understand someone's point of view without accepting it yourself: this is what I am advocating, and what I ultimately mean by open-mindedness.

I never said there was anything wrong attempting to understand what someone is saying that is not how the term "openmindedness" is typically used. Usually being "openminded" where these types of discussions are concerned means being open to the possibility that there are more than one way to God. Usually it is not athesists that are so bent making the "opendminded" argument as it is those of other relgions who seek to have us believe that their religions are on par with Christianity.

Typically, what I see coming here (and I am speaking in a general sense) are arrogant athesists coming here with false, preconceived notions about Christians and can't even quote the Bible properly when they are making their case. They come to boards like this one looking for Christians they view as easy prey, who are not scientists who are mostly just regular people, not scholars. They make unrealistic demands of us, and then pretend they have won some type of victory because we did not have an answer to a unreasonable question that no one would possibly have an answer to. Frankly from what I have seen on this board, atheists are lousy debators. They frame our faith incorrectly, assign motives and values to us that we do not hold to and then that as platform for criticism.

I understand your frustration; and were I go back through your second paragraph and replace the word 'Christians' with 'atheists,' you'd have a pretty good idea of how we get pidgenholed in debates, too. Your last comment - the mention of being assigned motives and values that one does not actually hold, and then being criticised for them - is a very accurate description of the vast bulk of my conversations with Christians about atheism. All atheism is, at the end of the day, is a lack of belief in all and any gods. Beyond that lack, it implies no adherence to a set moral, political, social, scientific or ethical philosophy - and yet in discussions pertaining to such diverse points as these, atheists are continually lumped together as a single herd. Atheism is dubbed a 'religion' or 'faith' by some Christians when, contextually, the notion is absurd: a single commonality of thought with no supporting moral/social framework does not religion make. It is widely assumed that all atheists accord with the theory of evolution; that we are all in favour of pre-marital sex, homosexuality and abortion; that we are irrevocably politically left wing; that we live spiritually empty lives (due to our lack of a relationship with God); that we are ignorant; and that we are, at core, amoral (because we do not have the Bible to guide us).

Stereotyping happens to everyone, and everyone does it, though they don't realize it. Christians are only people, and they aren't exempt from this. In such heated debates, its easy to become upset with the other side, and start to total up characteristics a person sees as problematic or upsetting. But not all stereotypes are just false beliefs about certain groups of people - many have some kind of factual basis behind them. For example, I have met many atheists and agnosts (which are purposefully the same thing because of the lack of belief in a deity of any sort) over a period of two or three years online, and the vast majority of them do tend to support homosexuallity, disregard the notion of any real moral truth, take left-wing stances, and have stalwart faith in the theory of evolution. It's true, I have also met atheists who even believe in such a thing as a human soul, or feel that there is plenty of truth in the Bible other than its Theistic statements, but these are pretty rare and the generalization is not completely knocked down by their existence. On the atheist's side, I have also met a large amount of Christians who think Jack T. Chick is the spokesman of modern Protestant Christianity, hate just about any form of contemporary entertainment, and force themselves down other people's throats.

As to what you said about conducting one's self with humillity: I would agree, accept with all the background noise, you still end up with a voice too quiet to do any good. The ones who are loud and talkative are usually easiest to hear, and they stir up more people than someone who does things the good old fashioned way. More negative attention is just as good to some people as positive attention, and it makes a palatable story, for sure. Take for example Islam: everyone thinks they are all steadfast millitants, because they rarely hear about the ones who aren't. Those ones who aren't blowing up buildings, making video tapes with outrageous messages, and beheading people don't even get rewarded. Even if the Muslims who have a sense about them were to be covered - which they aren't, because they're too benign to be worth any special attention in such a large world full of people who are supposed to be the same way - no one would listen to them quite as intently because they don't pose a threat, and they don't evoke any emotions like the suicide bombers do. What they have to say just doesn't seem to be worth as much concern.

I am not trying to be negative, but it really seems that way in our world. Back when I first started arguing with naturalists on forums, the first few of them were really nice people, but as time went by, I came into contact with more of them, and I, of course, met some freaks. Some of the people I met were so twisted and against anything Christian, I would hate to associate with them at all, even when they weren't attacking me. A few were in a good amount of trouble with the law. They also have a profuse talent for using their words to manipulating people and damaging their emotions. All of the abuse, and some of what they said, itself, can leave you really jaded. It's a nasty war in the ontological debate, and those kinds of behaviors obviously heighten the tension.

[CaritateDei]

Not sure how your comment relates to mine.

Just to clear up, no Christian has ever taught the earth was flat.

Are you making a distinction between the Catholic church and Christianity?

I am making no such distinction. No Christian has taught that the earth was flat. The Catholic Church never declared this so, and neither have any of the other Christian faiths. Where do you get this information?

Few of the early church folks found it hard to believe that there were folks on the other side of the round earth, and some thought that earth was floating on the water. Not a one of them worth mentioning ever thought it was flat.

[secondeve]

Not sure how your comment relates to mine.

Just to clear up, no Christian has ever taught the earth was flat.

Are you making a distinction between the Catholic church and Christianity?

I am making no such distinction. No Christian has taught that the earth was flat. The Catholic Church never declared this so, and neither have any of the other Christian faiths. Where do you get this information?

Few of the early church folks found it hard to believe that there were folks on the other side of the round earth, and some thought that earth was floating on the water. Not a one of them worth mentioning ever thought it was flat.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. Either no Christian ever taught the earth was flat, or no Christian worth mentioning ever thought it was flat. Your call.

[secondeve]

Right: apologies. Just realised I got confused initially: was thinking about the Earth not being the centre of the solar system, which the Church did advocate. Probably some Christians back in the day did think the Earth was flat, but you're correct - I have no information to say it was an official position.

[The Lorax]

Hey CaritateDei, my connection's up and I checked those debates.

Dinesh v. Dennet. Wow. I've never seen such a one-sided match, ever. By the end I was embarrassed for Dennet, to be shut down so royally in his own house. His arguments were pretty weak and his speaking ability didn't help. Dinesh was in a whole different league. It's obvious his spiel is very well-rehearsed and he puts a lot of energy behind it. My only complaint is that he was somewhat over the top at the times, skewing from the logical to the rhetorical.

Dinesh v. Hitchens. From the outset you could tell they were out for blood. Each won and lost ground on certain points but I think overall Dinesh had better responses to Hitchens' arguments than vice versa. Hitchens really was clever in hijacking the focus and the time limits of the debate. He snuck through some tough questions using articulate but meaningless obscurantism. When Dinesh complained that he was filibustering he was right. Judging from their applause, it seemed like Dinesh won the audience over by the end. Hitchens was losing steam and he was probably lucky the debate wasn't longer. He basically conceded to the argument about the perfect settings of the cosmological constants, but Dinesh received some pretty harsh rebuttals a couple times. An intense debate overall. Looking forward to more.

[CaritateDei]

Hey CaritateDei, my connection's up and I checked those debates.

Dinesh v. Dennet. Wow. I've never seen such a one-sided match, ever. By the end I was embarrassed for Dennet, to be shut down so royally in his own house. His arguments were pretty weak and his speaking ability didn't help. Dinesh was in a whole different league. It's obvious his spiel is very well-rehearsed and he puts a lot of energy behind it. My only complaint is that he was somewhat over the top at the times, skewing from the logical to the rhetorical.

Dinesh v. Hitchens. From the outset you could tell they were out for blood. Each won and lost ground on certain points but I think overall Dinesh had better responses to Hitchens' arguments than vice versa. Hitchens really was clever in hijacking the focus and the time limits of the debate. He snuck through some tough questions using articulate but meaningless obscurantism. When Dinesh complained that he was filibustering he was right. Judging from their applause, it seemed like Dinesh won the audience over by the end. Hitchens was losing steam and he was probably lucky the debate wasn't longer. He basically conceded to the argument about the perfect settings of the cosmological constants, but Dinesh received some pretty harsh rebuttals a couple times. An intense debate overall. Looking forward to more.

Like I said, it is easy for some to be objective in viewing debates, but most folks cannot. If you look at the Youtube responses, you see tons of ignorant people saying things like, "D'Souza got completely owned by Dennett," or "I am ashamed to be the same species as the unreasonable D'Souza." I agree that D'Souza was over the top and even yelled a bit too much, but in the end, Dennett really lost that one.

The crowd favorite is not always the winner. The Hitchens debate took place at The King's College in New York, so it is not surprising that D'Souza was the crowd favorite. In the end, though, he really did respond well to Hitchens.