Hello everyone!  I am in need of help. As an atheist, I feel I am constantly having to ague or defend my stance and views.  Although I am a non confrontational person, I can no longer allow myself to be walked upon any longer. I see people who are able to hold their own in a debate; however, I personally do not know how to argue a point/debate an idea to save my life!  Can this be learned or are you just born with it?

Views: 596

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

My preferred style when confronted by a theist is to lead with FACTS, hard, strong FACTS.  This means boning up on what may be a LOT of stuff, though you don't have to be an expert on evolution, the bible, physics, cosmogony and who knows what else to be able to hold your own.  BTW, as it comes to the bible, a GREAT resource is The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.  Give a look when you have a moment; it is VERY much worth your time!

The problem is that your opponent will frequently not acknowledge your facts, or they will ignore them, or they will make an emotional appeal rather than a logical one.  These take multiple forms and can be slippery to deal with.  About all I can suggest here is to learn from others, read about encounters others have had here and on other atheist fora.  Dealing with believers is a learned skill, like many other things.  It'll take patience and time, but it is worth it!

If you have a specific issue you're dealing with, do please bring it out.  There are LOTS of folks here (yours truly included!) who would be more than glad to help.

In an emotional appeal, I always point out where religion ignores emotion and human happiness. Not hard To find examples.

One other piece of advice (actually more than one, depending on how you look at it) is this video from A|N member Steve Shives on 9 Tips For Having a Civil Argument.  It's good basic stuff, less about debate than discussion.

Steve has also done a number of videos where he looks at books regarding christian apologetics, including Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity and William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith.  Frankly, he tears them apart, clearly and systematically.  I recommend them all highly.  You'll find them all on Steve's YouTube page.

Why not just tell them you believe in facts and rational observations from same; then tell them there is not a single fact they can advance to prove the existence of any "god."

I only argue with people that I have a measure of respect for.  Many times an argument may be put on hold until I or my opponent have had time to look up a reference.  

For the rest of the population, when I feel inclined to disagree openly, I just state that "I disagree".   Then I sit on my statement like a mule.  I am not expending the energy to have a dialogue with someone that dismisses what I have to say with no more thought than a chimpanzee. 

Get a book on logical fallacies. You can win any argument religous or non-religious. There are a few on amazon you can buy for a nominal sum of money.

Lately, i decided to do what xtians have always done to me. I shake my head and look at them like they're nuts. I do minimal talking, and just say "that's bull", or"you can never prove what you're saying", etc. I want them to have a fit, not me. It's been working so far. 

It helps to first consider what you're trying to accomplish. If you absolutely must "win" in every case I can put you in touch with my wife, who refuses to surrender...ever. It is an exercise in frustration if you're looking to either discuss or crush the obstinate with facts and the "perfect" argument.

If you're looking to discuss, I suggest you first pick wisely who you associate with. It might actually help you to learn something.

Only state what you know, not what you speculate may be true. Don't put forth wishful thinking as an argument or you'll be beaten to the ground. It is difficult sometimes to recognize in ourselves positions based upon emotion. Again, what do you know? Also, accept that you don't know everything. Some things we can't be expected to know, maybe not just now but ever.

Ask questions. "How do you know that" and "what evidence is there that this is true" go a long way towards not only exposing weaknesses but wishful thinking on the part of the opponent. I much prefer to have my adversary place their head in the noose than myself. Call them out on it once exposed...respectfully (assuming they respond in kind).

Lastly, it has been my experience that most people I come in contact with will be there a while. I would much rather respectfully disagree and have friends than generate hatred in those I've offended. I believe one of the reasons this country is having such a difficult time moving forward is because we've lost the ability to respectfully disagree. No matter how a debate turns out, unless you intend to fight to the death, we still have to live together. Animosity means we've terminated the discussion, in which case both sides have lost the future opportunity to put forward a convincing argument. Having a humble sense of humor goes a long way towards soothing hurt feelings and anger. Of course it does not do much for the person without either humility or a sense of humor but it will certainly help you.

It's funny how a christian can be real nasty and disrespectful and not even realize it, but when we disagree, we have crossed the line. This is the tough part. Don't raise your voice, and give them a reason to ask ....... "Why are you so angry?" :)

Excellent point. I hear that repeatedly on other websites. A constant complaint about the "angry militant atheist". I just try to ignore it and move forward, confident that I'm being as honest as I can be. I know I'm not going to change the world, I'm just trying to have a discussion in my little corner of it. I'm confident we're gaining strength in numbers and our arguments are beginning to resonate. We need to have a little faith (ok, confidence) in our fellow A/Ners.

This may not follow, but hearing you talk about that made me understand "angry militant feminists" in a whole new light.  It seems like the two could be pretty interchangeable in the right situation.  That's a new line of thought for me.

You cannot win. You cannot defeat in debate a person who does not follow the rules of debate. A believer never follows the rules of debate. When for example, you ask a question he cannot answer, he will either move the goalposts (change the subject), or give a mystical "God works in mysterious ways" non-answer.

And the next person coming along who only thinks if you heard it "his way" will try again.

The best you can do is force the goalpost mover to stay on topic (do not allow him to change the subject - demand satisfaction for your question/statement). In proper debate, a person who has been shown to be wrong or lacking must admit that they are wrong or lacking. To an atheist, an answer of "I don't know" is always acceptable to a question you do not know the answer to; a believer cannot give that answer: religion must be certain, or it is irrelevant.

You must be more knowledgeable about the subject at hand (Christianity/Bible) than the apologist is. That means you gotta read the Bible - it is self-defence for an atheist.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible/Qu'ran/Book of Mormon is a fine reference, and that Website is now coming out with a print book. He pulls out his Bible and now you can pull out your own study Bible. The difference is SAB has subjects broken out into topics like absurdities, genocide, slavery, &c.

Why Won't God Heal Amputees is a Website devoted to the absolute failure of the promise of prayer as told in the New Testament. The site is well-worth reading to understand the fallacy of faith and prayer.

The biggest problem with the apologist, the more Fundamentalist the worse, is the New Testament's so-called Great Commission. (That is 1 Peter 3:15.) That commission is to "spread the Gospel, and be able to give a good reason for the joy your faith gives you." That commission also requires him to know and understand his scriptures.

Note the phrase "give good reason." The New Testament also points out that reason is a tool of the devil. Nevertheless, faith is not sufficient to carry on the Great Commission. Moreover, faith is not a virtue anyway (if you have faith I have a penny stock to sell you that will break all records in the next week - faith is gullibility).

Aside from the issue of who has the burden of proof in a positive claim, Peter himself lays out it is the Christian's responsibility to give acceptable proof, not you. If he is demanding you give proof for your atheism, then he is failing the commission of his own Bible, and you don't need to be soft in asserting that.

Finally, for your own edification there is a site that points out all the logical fallacies that appear in debates called "Your Logical Fallacy Is . . ." Read and understand every fallacy listed, so you can be aware of and counter them when they appear in an apologist's arguments. All apologetics require the use of logical fallacies to support their claims.




Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service