The Atheist - Christian Debate Or Dialogue

[R. S. Martin]

It was posted a while ago, Post 42 in this thread, so I will copy the whole post here:

 

RubySera- I tend to find that some Calvinists just don't bother. Any more people in heaven means that they are less special.

 

How utterly evil!

 

LOL

 

I was somewhat baffled by Calvinists too, before I came to understand their way of thinking. I was indoctrinated with a generally Arminian viewpoint as opposed to a Calvinistic one, and I had difficulty reconciling my knowledge that they considered themselves, and in some regards lived as, devout Christians, yet they tended to have an unmistakable air of superiority, and a lack of empathy.

 

If that is how little they care about others maybe I can let up a bit, too, on my side. I read one of wonder's posts on Theological Issues on exC. He said the way to get ahead with Christians is to be respectful of those who deserve it and ignore the rest. Also to use a reward and punishment system. This works only if they care whether or not one responds to them.

 

Calvinists tend to be tough nuts to crack. It seem to me that aside from Catholics, Calvinists put vastly more work into building logically defensible epistemologies, than any other Christian subgroup. And I really don't know enough about Catholicism to know whether it can withstand logical assault as well as Calvinistic views can. That said, I do enjoy a challenge, and I'd love to be able to get onto puritanboard.com but their membership rules require proof that you are among the indoctrinated before discussing things with them.

 

What I was attempting to describe is somewhat more complex than "to be respectful of those who deserve it and ignore the rest.", but that's a topic for another time. IMO it can be worthwhile taking on Calvinists in forum dialogs, because if they actually take their beliefs seriously, they can often be lead to make their own belief system look extremely silly, and if little else of value comes out of the discussion, lurkers are likely to recognize the self imposed blindness of the Calvinistic position. And because some Calvinist apologists have put some serious effort into refining their arguments, there can be value in refining one's own epistemological viewpoint in taking them on.

 

Here is an extremely long thread in which I carry on a long dialog with a Calvinist over the course of a month. I'd suggest it would be masochistic to wade through the whole thing, and I've since developed better arguments to use against his position. However, having good counter-arguments is hardly necessary, since his viewpoint is so ridiculous that he can continually be lead into making a fool of himself. The initiator of that thread hasn't posted in that forum, since that thread ended.

 

I'm picking out the ones I think are worthy of my time and energy. The guy who responded this questioner is NOT worth my time and energy. He wrote me off as a bully because I requested--horror of horrors!--evidence. Ever hear of such a dirty word, LilaMae? I actually had to gall to utter it on a Christian forum not once or twice but many times in broad daylight and in polite company and persistently as though I expected them to deliver as promised.

 

I think it's valuable to be persistent in requesting supporting evidence. Like water trickling across rock; long term exposure to people asking for evidence, and continual failure on the part of Christians, to provide supporting evidence; can erode confidence in Christian beliefs and result in minds that seek a trustworthy basis for beliefs. Maintaining a frame of being open to looking at other points of view - but insisting on the unreasonableness of asking oneself to believe the other point of view valid, without supporting evidence - can lead the person one is in a dialog with, to investigate evidence themselves in an effort to convince. IMO it's best to be sincerely open to considering evidence of the other viewpoint, even though one doesn't expect it to be forthcoming. Others are more likely to look into what can be supported by evidence, if they maintain some hope of convincing you as a result of finding the right evidence. And who knows where, looking into what may be believed based on evidence, may lead them?

 

 

Wonderer, I looked up the thread you linked. The person who started it goes by the name Calvinist and I would guess he does not necessarily represent the entire Calvinist establishment just because he uses that name. All the same, I recognize an authoritarian attitude with which I am all to familiar.

 

You suggest a person has to be masochistic to read the entire thread. I don't think I'm exactly masochistic but I am into the fifth page of that discussion. Calvinist is such an interesting character. The fact that I know the end keeps me motivated to keep reading. At the Page 5 stage it looks totally hopeless that the atheist can win. Tough nut to crack describes him totally. He's right and he knows it and that's that. If you don't like that's just tough beans for you. Some of the atheists have already decided they've got better things to do than talk with such a thick-skulled guy. You yourself have barely entered the fray at this point. Because I know the end I'll keep reading. It promises to become interesting.

 

Oh, and I started this as a new thread because you say in your post:

 

What I was attempting to describe is somewhat more complex than "to be respectful of those who deserve it and ignore the rest.", but that's a topic for another time.

 

I am at a stage in life where I am fascinated with the Christian/atheist discussion/debate so I decided to provide this "other time."

 

This will be opportunity for serious discussion on how to effectively debate with Christians. Ideally, Christians can input their ideas, too, on how they like to be approached. They must, however, understand that disagreement with their beliefs does not--repeat DOES NOT--constitute disrespect of their person or religion.

 

Two major misconceptions of Christians seem to be:

1. their specific religion is sacrosanct, i.e. cannot be touched, spoken against, or disagreed with without committing the unpardonable sin, or being ad hominem.
   
2. all other humans on earth--past (back to the time of Christ's resurrection), present, or future--are too haughty and disrespectful of the sacrosanct Christian beliefs to be worthy of decent human dignity or respect.
   

Obviously, those are misconceptions and atheists do not concede them. If any Christians on these forums have problems with those issues, this may be an opportunity to discuss them. Hopefully, this can be a civil discussion. If not, it can always be moved to the Lion's Den. I wasn't sure where to post it.