For those who debate christians...

[Finder]

why don't we make them prove the human existance of Jesus? I know from my many debates that debating the concept of a deity is a waste of time in most cases but the fact that there is no evidence of the person christians worship will at least make them realize what their beliefs are based on.

Especially when debating evolution as only a theory, tossing out Jesus as an example of unsubstantiated claims verses evolution which is substantiated is effective as well.

[Az]

1. Its the nature of how the debate flows

They don't have to prove to themself that Jesus existed. They already believe it. When challenged on the matter they can retreat and lose no faith in the matter.

The trick is to get them to want to prove Jesus existed. Even then they may be satisfied with throwing up some quotes such as Josephus, Pliny, or others. The fact that they can be quickly refuted may not phase them as they believe they made the effort and that counts.

You have to remember that the mind only turns to the tool of reason (and skepticism) when doubt already exists. We do not waste time reasoning whether we can walk through walls because we have no doubt that we cannot. It is simply the nature of our mind to only turn to tools that can erode beliefs when we begin to doubt the belief.

[Finder]

2. Agree, however...

In my experience, most christians who are willing to debate evolution using lack of evidence as a method of reasoning would realize that their method when applied to the existance question would give them pause.

Isn't one of the reasons we engage in these debates to encourage them to think?

Apologists effectively employ analogy in most of their writings, why shouldn't we since we are dealing with the same audience?

[GOPFighter]

3. Arguing with fundy C'tians should be as easy as...

...shooting fish in a barrel. There are just SO many ways to shoot them down with logic...it's breathtaking. But that only works with open-minded people willing to think rationally. Fundies don't.

When confronted with logic, they quickly retreat in fear and seem to become even more energized to force their views on the country via laws. Their religious leaders understand their flock's insecurity and play to that, constantly reassuring them that they are right and everyone else is unwittingly working for the devil. Therefore we must be silenced by whatever means necessary. Scary

Fundies react to emotion, not logic. Unfortunately, atheists don't have anything like the "burning fires of hell" to scare them into letting go of their "loving god".

[Az]

5. They engage us in debate over evolution because we play by rules

We do not hold to the theory of evolution because of faith in it. We do not gather around on Sunday holding hands and chanting we will believe in evolution (paraphrased from Stephen Gould). We hold to evolution because it is the best theory fitting the evidence we have before us.

Ever notice that the scientific community does not attempt to engage the creationists in debate on a regular basis. It is typically someone from the atheist community that raises the flag of science against them. The Scientific community (usually) sees no benefit in arguing with someone that is not going to use their methodology in discerning the truth. This is both to their benefit and their destruction. But more of this later.

It is typically the atheists that try to force believers into using their tools to discern the truth. One on one this is doomed to failure. You will never convince a true believer with just logic and reason. And its not because they are stupid or brain damaged. Its simply how our minds work.

They are so taken up with their beliefs that the impact of science and reason cannot reach them. Its an emotional thing. You cannot shift a belief without overpowering the emotional importance of the belief. Whether this is down by a single catostrophic blow or a 1000 cuts is the biggest decision. But simply telling them that their belief that god created everything in six days because evolution and other sciences say it took much longer and was not a factor of creation will simply bounce off them like so much rain.

Our mind only brings reason into the process when it has some level of doubt concerning the things it believes. This only occurs when there are ideas that it has accepted emotionally that come to conflict with other ideas already accepted. This process goes on all the time. Weights and balances shift continually in our mind. This is how we come to learn things and change our mind about things.

The way we come to view the universe around us becomes the foundation of our identity. As we learn and grow this vision develops. We constantly seek answers and understanding as we grow until we develop our own way of seeing the world around us. Our parents and teachers help us develop this. And their influence and ideas help to form the infrastructure that becomes our beliefs.

Once laid down the daily reinforcement of the view becomes constant. Thus if we had been taught that elves caused it to rain then everytime we see it rain we would see it as reinforcement of our belief in elves.

It is possible to overcome this view. Education and experience may lead to new ideas being introduced that eventually overwhelm the belief. A person can enter into a new environment that does not continually reinforce the more obtuse aspects of the belief and they may wane giving way to other perpsectives.

Depending on how a person's views shift they may give rise to both euphoria or mind numbing depression. When a person loses a belief they are often left feeling helpless and lost. A crisis of faith leaves them with no tools they are familiar with to find their way through life. Where once they had certainty and understanding now they only see doubt and darkness. Often they will try to find a way back to their beliefs. But sometimes they will have enough experience with other ways to begin to cobble together a new view. One hopefully grounded in reason and logic.

Those that discover a new way of viewing the world around them will experience euphoria. This is simply due to the way the mind responds to knew discoveries. As children we thrill to learn about everything around us. Our mind is simply geared for this. Every new thing is a thrill. Eventually though we begin to find fewer and fewer things to thrill our minds as we experience more and more of the world.

Thus when we suddenly discover a new way of looking at the world all the possibilities and new perspectives can overwhelm us emotionally. In this way we do not see the loss of our old way of viewing the world as a loss. Rather we thrill in the excitment of exploring the world anew. We cannot wait to apply our new vision to the common things around us.

Thus people that have such a shift will be very difficult to move or motivate to engage in reasoned debate (unless reason was the shift in their vision). A born again christian is going to be very full of their new vision. It is going to have tremendous impact on the way they view things. A simple thing like a fact is not going to be strong enough to impact their world.

In a debate with such individuals we typically will hold to rules such as reason and logic. These have no impact on them unless they choose to let them have impact. Meanwhile they can use our rules to run us around in circles. As they are trying to make an appeal on a very different level this can be effective for them. Their only job is to blunt the emotional impact of our argument. And since we are already engaged in playing a nonemotional assault their job is half done already. The only problem they have to check for is that their audience does not take any of the information we impart in a clear and reasonable manner.

To this end they engage in muddling our arguments. The audience they are appealing to is anyone with belief ranging from the true believers to those who are on the fence. If they can create enough confusion about what we are saying then they can poison the ideas for these other minds. The emotional impact from our attack comes from the cohesiveness of our argument.

Reason and logic create connections of ideas that can accumulate a tremendous impact if accepted by the mind. Each link in the chain carries with it an emotional impact. Cumulatively it can be quite powerful. But if the links are attacked and doubt is introduced it can lose it's impact. This is the goal of the creationist debater.

To this end they will throw every imaginable argument at the opponent. Often turning to disparate fields in the hopes of hitting on something the opposition is simply unfamiliar with. All they have to do to win is introduce a subject that the advocate for science can only reply "I don't know". A lesser but as effective way to win is to force them to explain a simple question with a complex lengthy explanation. This will lose most audience members and cause them to side with the seeming wisdom of the simple question.

This is in part why scientists tend not to engage creationists in debate. First its simply not their medium. Such debates are more about emotional impact than the examination of facts. There is no win from the scientists point of view. If they do manage to win it adds nothing to their studies. And if they lose they risk their name and reputation.

Thus it is that those who are more vested in opposing these believers tend to be the ones that rise to the occaision. Atheists tend to wind up being the advocates of reason and science in the face of believers. But as we take this upon ourselves (if we choose to) we need to be conscious of exactly what the nature of the battle is and exactly what it is we can achieve. Choose your fights accordingly. If there is nothing to gain from a fight there is no reason to engage in it. If there is something to gain then gain it by the best route possible. Know your goals and act on them.

[Finder]

7. I rarely debate deity per se but...

in the case of christians, their god was supposedly a man who lived. It is easier to get them to at least look into whether he existed. As I said, using their methodology regarding evolution, they will indoubtedly find themselves in a pickle.

I think it is important to debate with logic and calm and analogy since it is affecting us through our schools, media, and even legistlatively.

It is difficult to win a debate on origins and we should stay away from being trapped into trying. Questioning the existence of Jesus is a better way to engage them and educate them.

Getting fake fossils thrown on the table can be explained by the analogy of the James ossuary issue. Just as not all scientists believed in the validity of certain fossils, not all christians believed the box was real either.

Am I making any sense?

[Az]

8. You are being perfectly reasonable

But that may not be the best route to cause them to begin to question their beliefs.

The trick is to find something they will want to bring into their mind. Something that makes sense to them and will be attached to their thought process. Something that will begin to eat away at other ideas they hold to.

Its the 1000 cut approach over the single catostrophic hit. You find something that they can cling to or that they want to believe that is somehow at odds with the rest of their views. And you build upon that.

Unfortunately there is no one neat little target to hit on all believers. Each person is unique. It is more art than science in practice.

But there are some common threads that they tend to hold. And our existance as atheists exasterbates these threads. The trick is to not become the thing they think atheists are. They directly experience interaction with us. This is a thing their mind cannot readily dismiss. If we comform to all the things they think of atheists (the negative traits) then we offer no threat.

But if they find us to be compassionate good people who are willing to listen to them (even if we disagree) then their image begins to crumble. Once this facade disintergrates they will begin to question what they know about atheists. Then if you have presented yourself as a good and honest person they may come to you and ask questions.

In this way you do not have to hunt down the ways to introduce doubt to them. It is already present but they have no way to explore it with others in their normal environment. If they feel they can come to you with questions they will begin to explore the paths you set before them. And this is the way doubt can enter their beliefs and invite reason to resolve the conflicts.

[Warpy]

4. I've given up debating them

however I'm impolite enough to point out the ones who blindly follow the GOP are unchristian and I'll supply the chapters and verses on why.

Personally, I don't care what another person believes. I really don't care if they flick a Bic and worship the flame. If it helps them get through the long, lonely nights, it's OK by me. Most Christians are decent people. A few are decent people who have been lied to and need to be educated. Even fewer are loudmouths who spew hate and call it Christianity.

However, when they start hurting other people, I do speak up.

[Az]

6. The paradox

It's civil not to express concern about what another believes. But the reality is that there are belief systems out there that are actively attempting to propogate themselves. And these belief systems may have negative effects on society from our point of view. Thus it logically follows that their continued propogation should be of some concern to us.

[Kolesar]

9. The evangelizing Pentecostalists are overrunning La Raza

There is a concerted effort to convert the Spanish-speaking population in America and Central America. It looks to me like a classic 700-club-style conservative misdirection play.