Realist Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 The longer I have gotten away from my "forced" involvement with christianity, the more I have become to think the following. Is it really just a waste of your own time debating with fundie type christians? The main reason I say this is because of the following. These christians arguments are so heavily subjective that to argue on an objective basis is NOT possible. I personally feel objective debate (or thought) is not possible from christians until they at the minimum question the reliability of the bible or the reliabilty of their feelings? Both have been formed out of subjectiveness rather than objectiveness. With myself the first major step came when I crossed the line fundie christians are not prepared to venture to... "was it at all possible the bible might not be the inspired word of god?" I feel the individual THEMSELVES has to come to a similar point before any worthwhile debate can be had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 They are delusional and irrational, so my answer is yes, it's a waste of time since their beliefs, no matter how erroneous, are set in stone. Our frequent trolls bear me out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilovemybrain Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 It won't change their minds, but it can certainly be helpful in reminding some if us why we stopped believing and why we'll never be able to go back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 The longer I have gotten away from my "forced" involvement with christianity, the more I have become to think the following. Is it really just a waste of your own time debating with fundie type christians? I hear ya'. The main reason I say this is because of the following. These christians arguments are so heavily subjective that to argue on an objective basis is NOT possible. I personally feel objective debate (or thought) is not possible from christians until they at the minimum question the reliability of the bible or the reliabilty of their feelings? Both have been formed out of subjectiveness rather than objectiveness. With myself the first major step came when I crossed the line fundie christians are not prepared to venture to... "was it at all possible the bible might not be the inspired word of god?" I feel the individual THEMSELVES has to come to a similar point before any worthwhile debate can be had. That's right. I think that they have to come to a point where they are willing to doubt what they know and have learned over the years and take an honest look at what they really believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyChef Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 IMHO,It is good practice in dealing with difficult people in everyday life. I find myself better to deal with the obnoxious and unrealistic "guest" in the restaurant trade after swimming in the minds of the nuts. Desensitization therapy in a way. Debate in itself is mental exercise,not to mention the laughs it brings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ TexasFreethinker ☆ Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 I think it's usually fruitless if winning a specific argument is your goal. The main problem is that we're coming from a completely different viewpoint than they are. We think rational evidence is required to find the truth. They think faith trumps evidence every time. I do think there can still be some benefit though. Many fundamentalists have never been made aware of the serious difficulties with the bible (which is usually the inerrant word of their god in their opinion) or with the other difficulties in their belief system. Being confronted with those problems can begin the process that many of us went through of questioning what we believe. Awareness and questioning can be a powerful combination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 It is a waste if your intention is to convince them of your point of view. There's an old saying I love, "A man convinced against his will, remains of same opinion still". The real value of the exercise is in honing your own thought processes in organizing and presenting your views. It helps to clarify them for you. And if you can do so in a way that you speak to the person behind their beliefs, that, might actually speak to them ten million decibels louder than any argument they perceive as a threat to their worldviews, their basis of stability in their lives, no matter how tenuous that may be. I've seen many times here on this site in my talking with certain fundies, where not hitting them square in the face with LOGIC against their beliefs, but talking to them, the walls came down on their own. They did because many of them come testing what is already failing for them. Smashing them in the face with how illogical they are usually results in protection mode. But logic with compassion and respect, can be fruitful, not just for them but ourselves. At a certain point, then it's time for us to build on what we've found once we are secure in these new structures. *Sigh*, I've been doing this for so very long... I just smile now, mostly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Depends on what you want to get out of the debate. If changing their minds is the goal, most debates are fruitless. Most humans are stubborn creatures, and are convinced that they are right, and what works for them works for the whole world. Fundies are just that much more pushed into that mindset, since it's eternity on the line. Good luck getting someone to risk their place in the fluffy-cloud land on streets of gold just to see where you're coming from. Changing minds has to be done by the owner of the mind. We're all here because we brought ourselves here. We might have had help from others, friends recommending books and bringing up good points, but in the end, we had to consider it /read the books ourselves. You can lead a fundy to the library, but you can't make it read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 Oops, forgot my second point: If you want a debate to be a mental exercise for yourself, or amusement, then fundies are an endless source of such things. There will always be someone who is stuck close to where you were, and you can use the fundy to, by proxy, lift yourself further out of your own deadened mindset that you have rejected. Then, debate has a distinct purpose. But changing minds, that's a rare result out of just plain old debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astreja Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 Regarding the fundie himself or herself, it appears to be a waste of time; however, in the bigger picture I think it's vital to publicly shred and mock certain aspects of the tripe they spew. Why? Because a lot of otherwise sane and well-meaning people get caught up in ridiculous beliefs because of absurd but common catch phrases, pseudo-history and appeals to emotion. By challenging fundie bilge, it serves to both educate and inoculate. I see the debate time as a vital investment in the future of humanity. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilovemybrain Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 Regarding the fundie himself or herself, it appears to be a waste of time; however, in the bigger picture I think it's vital to publicly shred and mock certain aspects of the tripe they spew. Why? Because a lot of otherwise sane and well-meaning people get caught up in ridiculous beliefs because of absurd but common catch phrases, pseudo-history and appeals to emotion. By challenging fundie bilge, it serves to both educate and inoculate. I see the debate time as a vital investment in the future of humanity. Excellent points! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadedAtheist Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 Some people see the light, such as us here. It is no doubt frustrating. I am currently exchanging emails with my former pastor and we seem to be stuck on biblical interpretation because of the circular reasoning involved. He is a smart man, in fact he is on his way to completing a PhD. He is quite knowledgeable as well and I've found the discussion somewhat interesting, which surprised me. I remember reading some material and watching the debates of Ehrman and Price vs White and the sentiment expressed by both was that they knew most people on the Christian side would come out no different than they went in but maybe they hoped, some would come out different. Some might come out and seriously think through the issues they've been presenting. I am one of those people they were hoping for. Anyways, I would generally avoid going and starting debates. I think presenting arguments for them to come across like in books and online media is the best format. At least those who are searching have a place to go and you can avoid those who aren't searching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 I think it depends on the variables. I, for one, was a committed conservative christian who had a strong faith, yet I was into apologetics and thought that christianity was reasonable and consistent with the evidence. I never had anyone give me a strong challenge when I was a christian. If someone had done so, I think there's a good chance that I may have deconverted sooner than I did. I also think it may be good for someone who is working through issues of doubt. They will see that logic and reason usually don't go very far with fundies who are more concerned about maintaining their blind faith than objective thought. If you do engage in debates, though, do so with full realization that it's unlikely that they will change their views solely on the basis of your debate. You may be "planting seeds," though. If your sole intent is to get them to see your point and change their views right then and there, then of course it's a big waste of time. Yet it could still have an effect on some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest riverrunner Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 well you know you are just planting seeds. some fall on rocky ground, some on thorns, but some will fall on good soil and take root. for most its like pearls before swine or something like that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 well you know you are just planting seeds. some fall on rocky ground, some on thorns, but some will fall on good soil and take root. for most its like pearls before swine or something like that. Exactly! You know, I have used the "pearls before swine" line on some fundies that just ended up frustrating me. They never knew what to come back with after I hurled their own book at them! In any case, debates CAN end up swaying some doubters, but as I've said (and the parable, as well), the person has to make the change themselves, ultimately. You can provide the wedge, but the other person has to drive it in place themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Exactly! You know, I have used the "pearls before swine" line on some fundies that just ended up frustrating me. They never knew what to come back with after I hurled their own book at them! I used it with Justyna in a thread here, and she didn't respond. It definitely seemed to fit the occasion, that's for damn sure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 When the objective is to change someone's mind, I agree with what's already been written here - it is mostly a waste of time. However, there are a few by-products of the debating business that can yield helpful results. Imho, these are... 1. Gaining a better insight into a particular argument, doctrine, concept or area of expertise. 2. Gaining a better insight into a certain Xian's mind-set. (Think Sun-Tzu!) 3. Serving notice that we know their tricks and we will not tolerate them. 4. Serving notice that there are certain rules (bona fide data, consistent lines of argument, rules of logic, etc.) that must be followed by ALL parties in a debate. My last point, while not dealing with anything that could be described as helpful or useful, is still a necessity. 5. Serving notice that whatever chicanery, disinformation or dishonesty they indulge in, we will oppose them every inch of the way (by using 3 and 4) for as long as it takes. Point 5 isn't very pleasant, but it must be done! BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 I used it with Justyna in a thread here, and she didn't respond. It definitely seemed to fit the occasion, that's for damn sure! FYI, she probably didn't respond since she was banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galien Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Yes, it is a complete waste of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
★ Citsonga ★ Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 I used it with Justyna in a thread here, and she didn't respond. It definitely seemed to fit the occasion, that's for damn sure! FYI, she probably didn't respond since she was banned. No, she still posted for a while after I said that, even in the same thread. It's good that she was eventually banned, though. There's just no sense in her actions at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted October 30, 2010 Share Posted October 30, 2010 Exactly! You know, I have used the "pearls before swine" line on some fundies that just ended up frustrating me. They never knew what to come back with after I hurled their own book at them! I used it with Justyna in a thread here, and she didn't respond. It definitely seemed to fit the occasion, that's for damn sure! I, too, have found that very often the Christians don't respond when I use quotes from their own book in my defense against them. Since there is zero response and since it's online, I don't know what it means. I have been accused for misinterpreting their sacred text, but they fail to explain how or in what way. The only thing that really makes sense--insofar as it does make sense--is that God exists above his own law and Christians as his kids aren't far behind. They'll never put it in those words. But in Slaughter of the Canaanites, William Lane Craig says: Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses.(emphasis added) To me, Craig seems to be saying here that God exists above his own law. Also, if I remember correctly, on another forum a fundy told me that of course God exists above the law. The way some Christians live and speak makes it seem like they think they, too, exist above the law. For example, when Christians claim the right to speak for God and what God wills, especially when they presume to know who goes to hell for not believing the right things (and exactly what those things are) but that they themselves are exempt from going to hell because "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven" (while at the same time claiming that Christianity makes people better humans), it seems to me they consider themselves to be living on a slightly higher plain than normal people. They seem to think they are above the law, too, very much like their God. If Christians think they are above the law (and above ordinary humans), it makes sense that they don't consider it worth their time and effort to respond to atheists, pagans, or other exChristians who use the Bible in their defense against Christians. That's my thoughts on this. This is a battle we won't win in the short run if winning means that the fundy gives up the floor and says, "My dear fella, I was wrong all these years," as Dawkins loves to say of one of his mentors when he was a young student. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Droptail Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Regarding the fundie himself or herself, it appears to be a waste of time; however, in the bigger picture I think it's vital to publicly shred and mock certain aspects of the tripe they spew. Why? Because a lot of otherwise sane and well-meaning people get caught up in ridiculous beliefs because of absurd but common catch phrases, pseudo-history and appeals to emotion. By challenging fundie bilge, it serves to both educate and inoculate. I see the debate time as a vital investment in the future of humanity. Well said. +1 Indeed, as disturbing and frustrating as it is to have experienced the distortions and blatant lies firsthand (& realize it after the fact), I find it even more confusing seeing my dad, an otherwise-intelligent and reasonable person, claim to me that mainstream science is not trustworthy because its goal is to destroy Christianity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leinad89 Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Though it seems futile, it can sow that special seed that will grow and make the person end up on this site, writing his/her testimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted December 11, 2010 Share Posted December 11, 2010 The longer I have gotten away from my "forced" involvement with christianity, the more I have become to think the following. Is it really just a waste of your own time debating with fundie type christians? The main reason I say this is because of the following. These christians arguments are so heavily subjective that to argue on an objective basis is NOT possible. I personally feel objective debate (or thought) is not possible from christians until they at the minimum question the reliability of the bible or the reliabilty of their feelings? Both have been formed out of subjectiveness rather than objectiveness. With myself the first major step came when I crossed the line fundie christians are not prepared to venture to... "was it at all possible the bible might not be the inspired word of god?" I feel the individual THEMSELVES has to come to a similar point before any worthwhile debate can be had. Any person incapable of talking rationally without first consulting a sky fairy is not coherent mentally enough to carry on a decent conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PocketAces Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 The longer I have gotten away from my "forced" involvement with christianity, the more I have become to think the following. Is it really just a waste of your own time debating with fundie type christians? The main reason I say this is because of the following. These christians arguments are so heavily subjective that to argue on an objective basis is NOT possible. I personally feel objective debate (or thought) is not possible from christians until they at the minimum question the reliability of the bible or the reliabilty of their feelings? Both have been formed out of subjectiveness rather than objectiveness. With myself the first major step came when I crossed the line fundie christians are not prepared to venture to... "was it at all possible the bible might not be the inspired word of god?" I feel the individual THEMSELVES has to come to a similar point before any worthwhile debate can be had. Yes it is a waste of time. My comment is nothing indicting to fundies. Its just...when there is a convinced side, it is pointless to talk to them because no one that is convinced talks 'with' you...they talk AT you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts