Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Hey all. About a month ago I converted from being a fairly strict atheist (which I'd been all my life) to... something else, as yet ill-defined. I recently had the pleasure of my first post-conversion religious debate, and all the strangeness of arguing from the opposite side from what I was used to...

It got me thinking about the interactions between atheists and theists, especially when they start fighting over who's right. Figured I'd come here and see if I could get anyone else's perspective on the topic, since this is probably the most civilized internet forum I know of.

Mostly hoping for a meta-argument here- a debate about the nature of religious debate, rather than a religious debate itself- but if it devolves into the latter, it'll give us some case examples.

So... who wants the first shot?

[smigenboger]

this won't end well, might as well sit back and watch the show

[Medicine Man]

I agree,I picture multiple bans and maybe even a war.Actully I don't mind theists as long as they don't try to convert me,the thing I hate about religion though is the constant dodging of reality.(you know the shit they say like dinosaurs don't exist but dragons do and stuff.)

[Josephus]

The previous religious threads didn't devolve into an utter flame war, so I'm assuming that this will be safe.

The problem is, people feel very strongly about what they do, or do not, believe in, and for this reason the "debate" disintegrates into name calling.

Well... I was an agnostic from High School until college, then I was "born again" (still not comfy with that term, however) - I think the main problem with the debate, as with the political ones, is that each side is convinced that the other is hopelessly deluded, and therefore stupid.

What annoys me is how, rather than resorting to reasoned theological arguments, "religious" people, especially on YouTube, just start cranking out Bible verses and assuming that these will stand on their own. They have no idea how to play by another side's rules, so to speak.

I agree,I picture multiple bans and maybe even a war.Actully I don't mind theists as long as they don't try to convert me,the thing I hate about religion though is the constant dodging of reality.(you know the shit they say like dinosaurs don't exist but dragons do and stuff.)

Case in point, Fundies, right? Especially the sort that think Jack Chick is right.

[CJ1145]

I agree,I picture multiple bans and maybe even a war.Actully I don't mind theists as long as they don't try to convert me,the thing I hate about religion though is the constant dodging of reality.(you know the shit they say like dinosaurs don't exist but dragons do and stuff.)

Now I think you're mixing up actual religious folk with the Westboro Baptist Church. Those people aren't so much religious as they are idiotic bigots that need an excuse for their actions. Religion just seemed the obvious choice to them. And frankly, I have NEVER met a Christian (though maybe other religions?) that has believed not in dinosaurs but in dragons. That sounds like propaganda some guy made to make religious people seem like idiots.

@Josephus: You're making a gross generalization about "religious" people just cranking out Bible verses. And for the record, let's just stop calling them religious and start calling them Christian, because we both know that's who you're talking about. Can you honestly say that atheists are not prone to the same sort of actions, dismissing others' validity simply for their beliefs?

[Josephus]

@Josephus: You're making a gross generalization about "religious" people just cranking out Bible verses. And for the record, let's just stop calling them religious and start calling them Christian, because we both know that's who you're talking about. Can you honestly say that atheists are not prone to the same sort of actions, dismissing others' validity simply for their beliefs?

I can't rightly call them Christian because they're spewing hate. Which is most definitely un-Christian. Hence the "religious" in quotation marks.

Also, yes, many atheists are prone to the same sort of action, which I pointed out in my post.

[smigenboger]

I sort of prefer the 'don't bother me with your stuff and I won't to you' approach.

[CJ1145]

@Josephus: You're making a gross generalization about "religious" people just cranking out Bible verses. And for the record, let's just stop calling them religious and start calling them Christian, because we both know that's who you're talking about. Can you honestly say that atheists are not prone to the same sort of actions, dismissing others' validity simply for their beliefs?

I can't rightly call them Christian because they're spewing hate. Which is most definitely un-Christian. Hence the "religious" in quotation marks.

Also, yes, many atheists are prone to the same sort of action, which I pointed out in my post.

Thank you then, many people are not willing to make that distinction.

[Medicine Man]

Dwarf Mc Dwarf smells a flame war a'comin!

[Heron TSG]

I don't mind theists as long as they don't try to convert me

[shibdib]

U can preach to me when im in my casket. Til then im peachy living with shit that makes sense.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

I sort of prefer the 'don't bother me with your stuff and I won't to you' approach.

I would, but that encourages stagnation. I'd like to see the debate be a lot more... honest, though. As in, actually trying to understand your opponent's point of view, rather than just destroy it.

I come back to one of the things the book that converted me said- it had a chapter talking about the course of a person's spiritual development, through four stages. Stage 1 is Criminal- you follow no rules, have no spiritual awareness, and think only of yourself. Stage 2 is rules-based- you start to follow the rules of the society you belong to, and believe that doing so makes you good (or godly, as the case may be). Stage 2 people may do a lot of good in the world, or a lot of bad, depending on which "rules" they most follow. Stage 3 is Explorative where people begin to most think for themselves, and question/abandon the rules they followed in stage 2- in our society, most atheists would be stage 3. Stage 4 is Mystic, where people start to find answers to some of the more difficult questions from stage 3, and understand the reasons behind the rules of stage 2; one of the big points of stage 4 (at least in my view) is a subjective rather than objective understanding of truth. For me, stage 4 means theism, but that's the product of the path I walked through life- I could certainly recognize a sufficiently sophisticated atheist as stage 4, and not doubt the legitimacy of his own path.

The problem with religious debates is that stage 2 people think all stage 3ers are in stage 1, and stage 3 people think stage 4 is the same as stage 2. And, beyond that, everyone is trying to force objective understanding on the people that disagree with them, which fails miserably. You get arguments of the form "This is why you're wrong so stop being silly and come be like me" not "Here's an idea you might find interesting, see where it leads you."

[Medicine Man]

I sort of prefer the 'don't bother me with your stuff and I won't to you' approach.

I would, but that encourages stagnation. I'd like to see the debate be a lot more... honest, though. As in, actually trying to understand your opponent's point of view, rather than just destroy it.

I come back to one of the things the book that converted me said- it had a chapter talking about the course of a person's spiritual development, through four stages. Stage 1 is Criminal- you follow no rules, have no spiritual awareness, and think only of yourself. Stage 2 is rules-based- you start to follow the rules of the society you belong to, and believe that doing so makes you good (or godly, as the case may be). Stage 2 people may do a lot of good in the world, or a lot of bad, depending on which "rules" they most follow. Stage 3 is Explorative where people begin to most think for themselves, and question/abandon the rules they followed in stage 2- in our society, most atheists would be stage 3. Stage 4 is Mystic, where people start to find answers to some of the more difficult questions from stage 3, and understand the reasons behind the rules of stage 2; one of the big points of stage 4 (at least in my view) is a subjective rather than objective understanding of truth. For me, stage 4 means theism, but that's the product of the path I walked through life- I could certainly recognize a sufficiently sophisticated atheist as stage 4, and not doubt the legitimacy of his own path.

The problem with religious debates is that stage 2 people think all stage 3ers are in stage 1, and stage 3 people think stage 4 is the same as stage 2. And, beyond that, everyone is trying to force objective understanding on the people that disagree with them, which fails miserably. You get arguments of the form "This is why you're wrong so stop being silly and come be like me" not "Here's an idea you might find interesting, see where it leads you."

Huh?

[FreakyCheeseMan]

Huh?

You're gonna have to give me a little more to go on. What doesn't make sense?

[shibdib]

I sort of prefer the 'don't bother me with your stuff and I won't to you' approach.

I would, but that encourages stagnation. I'd like to see the debate be a lot more... honest, though. As in, actually trying to understand your opponent's point of view, rather than just destroy it.

I come back to one of the things the book that converted me said- it had a chapter talking about the course of a person's spiritual development, through four stages. Stage 1 is Criminal- you follow no rules, have no spiritual awareness, and think only of yourself. Stage 2 is rules-based- you start to follow the rules of the society you belong to, and believe that doing so makes you good (or godly, as the case may be). Stage 2 people may do a lot of good in the world, or a lot of bad, depending on which "rules" they most follow. Stage 3 is Explorative where people begin to most think for themselves, and question/abandon the rules they followed in stage 2- in our society, most atheists would be stage 3. Stage 4 is Mystic, where people start to find answers to some of the more difficult questions from stage 3, and understand the reasons behind the rules of stage 2; one of the big points of stage 4 (at least in my view) is a subjective rather than objective understanding of truth. For me, stage 4 means theism, but that's the product of the path I walked through life- I could certainly recognize a sufficiently sophisticated atheist as stage 4, and not doubt the legitimacy of his own path.

The problem with religious debates is that stage 2 people think all stage 3ers are in stage 1, and stage 3 people think stage 4 is the same as stage 2. And, beyond that, everyone is trying to force objective understanding on the people that disagree with them, which fails miserably. You get arguments of the form "This is why you're wrong so stop being silly and come be like me" not "Here's an idea you might find interesting, see where it leads you."

Huh?

He jus started a debate by quoteing a guy saying he doesnt give a fu$% and... debating with himself?