A Dad Who Wants To Debate

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

IMO education is the key to a fulfilling life.  The impact on earning potential is a side benefit.  I would not suggest to an 18 year old that they should give up their hopes and dreams just because their Dad is an asshole.  No, we should be encouraging the young to go out there and take advantage of all life has to offer.

You are the one who is now getting close to equating schooling with hopes and dreams and suggesting that the dad might take away those. It is the opposite I am trying to say here: the dad has no such power. He can only take away what was his to begin with. That can mean you have to take another route, but in the end that route may get you where you wanted just as well if not better than the money route.

 

If a young person is interested in higher education, they should do everything in their power to get it.  If they don't, they usually have a lifetime of regrets.  I've met a few ex-cs here who regret studying at bible college and wish they had studied something more useful in the real world.

[sparklingphoenix]

If possible, I would try to tell the dad that I don't want to debate. I think it's a waste of energy to try and convince him of another belief. If the dad insists on debating I would just let the dad win, letting the debate fizzle out quickly, then go do some research in my room for my own edification. I never had religious debates with my dad, but he is an SOB too. Having any type of "conversation" with him was circular and stressful, and I was set up to lose no matter what great argument I had. I imagine the member may have a hard time avoiding his father's confrontations, but you are allowed to say "no." Saying no is really hard for me, so I understand that it's not easy, but you can be polite about it. What would the father do if you refuse him? Will he get physical or threaten to cut your college funds? If that's the case I would go into the debate and let him win quickly so it can be over. I don't think it will be very beneficial to engage deeply with the dad. If he is like mine, even if you have a really good point, he will find something else to say or use cheap attacks on your character to win the debate. 

[Lucy]

To let the dad win the argument is the same as lying in my opinion. He would be winning just because you backed down even though you still disagree with him. But it is your choice to make. If you say you don't want to discuss it anymore, then you're at least being honest.

 

 

 

Have you considered the idea of telling the father to put this matter into god's hands? Tell him that his debates aren't going to convert you back to Christianity. Tell him that if there is a god, then god knows you have become an atheist now. If god decides he wants to convert you back to Christianity then god would have the ability to do so. God doesn't need your dad to convert you back. Your dad should just go pray to god to handle this matter and leave you alone.

[Sheerbliss]

Re: education, I spent four and a half years getting a mechanical engineering degree. It was from an accredited state university, I won a design competition, passed the eight-hour EIT exam given by the state of Colorado, and have above-average written communication skills. And it was mostly a waste of time. Despite all the hype about the shortage of engineers, there's actually a glut of us (petroleum engineers aside--for now). And I hated college and living with my parents--they weren't religious nuts, but I had to put up with their constant criticism. I also know someone with a degree in forensic science who's driving a bus because she couldn't find work in her field. She and her husband are paying $500 a month in student loans. IEEE has a report on the STEM worker shortage being a myth here. 

 

That said, I still don't know what junior is studying or why. Is he brilliant in some field? Then he should go--but then, he should be able to get a scholarship. Is he trying to improve his job prospects with a liberal arts degree? I'm not sure if that really helps anymore. Law? He'd better learn how to argue and negotiate. Accounting? Yes, he'll need a degree if he's in the US. A trade school or community college? That shouldn't be horribly expensive to pay for himself. Going simply for knowledge? As others have said, you can learn on the internet and at the library. That's where I got all of my critical thinking skills; it's where some people get their job skills.

 

I'm not saying this because I think he should leave. I'm throwing this out there to help him assess how much a bargaining chip college is. It may be valuable; it may be wildly overrated. In any case, if junior has other options, it' going to be less important to his father as a bargaining chip.

[FarflungWanderer]

So, I'm just going to go out and say that I'm the aforementioned new member.

 

Alright, reply time.

 

25YearsLater, you raise a very fair point. If I'm coming here for help, obviously it means that I haven't looked at the raw data itself enough. However, I wasn't really coming here for pure arguments, I was looking more for places to look for information to form arguments. Beyond that, though, you might have a point on me "growing a pair", but at the same time it might not be the wisest idea to poke a bear in the eye.

 

For the whole "college-or-no" debate, you raise points that I've been pondering recently. I can't say I've come to a conclusion, but I know I at least want to finish sophomore year before I make any more decisions. While it's damned expensive, college can get you a stable, well-paying job, enough to support yourself, pay debts, and any future family. To forgo it might give me less stress and a shallower debt, I feel like the long-run benefits of having a degree far outstrap the short term benefits. The college I'm going to is fairly prestigious, which helps with job hunting, so I'm not sure if I'd want to jump down to a local college if I decided to keep going through the system.

 

Beyond that... Maybe I'm just stubborn, but I don't like to just roll over and play dead in arguments. I zone out, yes, but I don't agree with something I know is wrong just to curtail a debate.

[25YearsLater]

Beyond that... Maybe I'm just stubborn, but I don't like to just roll over and play dead in arguments. I zone out, yes, but I don't agree with something I know is wrong just to curtail a debate.

 

Yes, I'm sure you know best.  I did, too, when I was 18 and knew everything

 

I'm not going to debate you - I'll just close with one final point.

 

Thirty years ago, I debated with my parents, argued, and fought like crazy to assert my right to independence and to be treated like an adult.  Often, I wasn't very nice, and neither were they.  Nothing was achieved by the arguments - they made me, and them, even more determined to maintain our respective views.

 

It took twenty years for the relationship to gradually heal - as long again as I had been alive at the time.

 

Now, they are old, not yet a spent force, but not what they were, and it is a great sadness to me that they probably will not live a great many more years.  I cherish every minute I still have them, and deeply regret the time spent warring.

 

There is nothing to gain from the debates you seek weapons for, and a great deal to lose.

[FarflungWanderer]

Again, you raise a very good point.

 

Debates only help tear the family apart. If I could avoid them, I would. It's just that he seems to directly seek them out. He's enlisted some friends to help in his little crusade, though none debate me directly. That seems to have fallen to him.

 

Again, if I could avoid them, I would. I just wish I could give him what for, for once. Might even shut him up. But that's likely an 18-year-old's fighting spirit at work.

[mymistake]

Again, you raise a very good point.

 

Debates only help tear the family apart. If I could avoid them, I would. It's just that he seems to directly seek them out. He's enlisted some friends to help in his little crusade, though none debate me directly. That seems to have fallen to him.

 

Again, if I could avoid them, I would. I just wish I could give him what for, for once. Might even shut him up. But that's likely an 18-year-old's fighting spirit at work.

 

 

Well why don't you come strait out and ask him what he hopes to accomplish with such debates?  If he responds with something like changing *your* mind then let him know he isn't going to change your mind by giving you arbitrary rules that stack the deck.  Then perhaps you can tell him that the things that would change your mind are the sort of thing he can't provide . . . such as objective evidence.  Christianity is about taking things on faith and leaving Christianity is about no longer accepting faith as an adequate explanation.

 

This strategy isn't having a debate but rather explaining to him why debates are pointless.

 

This sums up the problem:

 

[R. S. Martin]

A relatively new member PMd me asking for advice, and I suggested asking fellow members to have input.  

 

He's a young guy only recently deconverted and still living very much under his parents' fundy oversight.  

 

I have suggested that its ok to tell his Dad he doesn't want to discuss xianity, as his Dad seems to want to debate late into the night.  I would find that annoying, to say the least.

 

Here's what he asked:

 

"[My Dad talked about] the concept of the "remnant" Church, an organization that holds stringently to what Jesus said and is based off of a long tradition of hyper-orthodox churches. As far as I can remember from my introduction to western religion class, this is an asinine statement. Can you help me figure out the truth?

"Also, I really need help buttressing my arguments as to why Evolution from one species to another (ie, Primates to Humans, Dinosaurs to Birds, etc.) is real. Do you know any good studies or just general overview?

 

"I guess to shore up, I could use some advice on how debate my Dad. He constantly calls me arrogant, which really doesn't make sense to me, says that I'm biased against God and therefore am not doing any real research, uses personality flaws that I have (in particular, I have a tendency to lie to avoid imminent trouble) to basically "expose the flawed morality of atheism", and will not accept any source I mention because either it's a "liberal lie to destroy Christianity", from the internet (and therefore somehow instantly unreliable), or both. I really don't know how to argue against him, and I really need advice."

 

I've also suggested to him that he studies this information about the theory of evolution: 

http://evolution.ber..._teacherfaq.php

 

Thanks 

FTNZ

 

The evolution link you posted is all about misconceptions. For a positive approach to evolution I suggest Talk Origions at http://www.talkorigins.org/. 

 

<I really need help buttressing my arguments as to why Evolution from one species to another (ie, Primates to Humans, Dinosaurs to Birds, etc.) is real. Do you know any good studies or just general overview?>

 

It didn't exactly work that way. This short YouTube may help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU Humans are not an evolved and improved form of ape. Apes and humans descended from a common ancestor, like the video showed, making us two different species, a kind of cousins, if you like.

 

Re "flawed morality of atheism." In this hour and a half video, William Lane Craig (Christian) and Shelly Kagan (atheist) discuss "Is God Necessary For Morality?" 

 

Re his father's argument for the descendance of the Orthodox Church. I know a significant number of Christians who share his belief. Many other Christians have other beliefs re how Christianity came down to our day. I think the important question is: Are the central tenets of Christianity true? What is right for me in my life? 

 

Re how to debate his dad. This question has been discussed in this thread. I think it boils down to whether or not he will let his father do this to him. 

[mymistake]

Atheism has never called for a war or promised remission of sins for those who go on crusade.  (Urban II) 

 

Atheism has never called for witches to be killed or burned alive.   (Ex 22:18, Inquisition, Witch Hunts of history)

 

Atheism has never demanded that a rape victim must marry her rapist.  (Deut 22:28-29)

 

Atheism has never told anybody they will be tortured for all eternity because of having the wrong kind of thinking.  (Gospel message)

 

Atheism does not justify genocide (Story of Noah, Story of the Plagues in Egypt, Story of Joshua's Conquest, Story of David's Conquest)

 

Atheism does not condone slavery (Lev 25:44-46, 1 Tim 6:1-2)

 

You can find more at evil bible . com

 

 

 

 

 

[ToHellWithMe]

Atheism has never called for a war or promised remission of sins for those who go on crusade.  (Urban II) 

...

Wait, what?

I found the point in your previous post very insightful: why debate? And if debate, perhaps try that meta road.

But what you give now is debate ammunition.

 

Yes, I'm sure you know best.  I did, too, when I was 18 and knew everything

I'm pretty sure this was uncalled for.

Rest of your message is good, tho, but as someone still at odds with my family, I'd like to add that sometimes enmity is necessary. If at some point peace is made, it doesn't mean that it necessarily could have been established any earlier. I doubt trust can be formed from thin air. Respect has to be mutual. Also, everyone has to deal with their own internal shit first.

[Sheerbliss]

The best source of information may be your own college. They probably teach biology and comparative religion or the bible as literature there, and if it's a fairly prestigious place, they surely aren't teaching young earth creationism or the bible as literal truth. 

 

Re: morality, I think a lot of Christians fear that a person will feel they have a license to do anything without religion. This doesn't bear out in real life. If a person comes from a religion with strict rules, they might stop observing rules that don't seem to have any point, or aren't worth the cost of adherence, e.g., they'll start dressing and eating in according to the time and place where they live. They don't necessarily turn into libertines; AFAIK, that seems to be the exception. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, for instance, are both atheists and two of world's most philanthropic people, and they're clean-living businessmen. Buffett in particular lives modestly for a man of his means. Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, born in Somalia and raised Muslim, is an atheist who has the moral courage to stand up to radical Islam. (The physical courage, too: there's a fatwa on her.)

 

A word about arguing. It's best done in an academic, intellectual way rather than getting angry and trying to show someone else a thing or two. And as a rational person, you're willing to look at evidence contrary to your position, and if the evidence warrants it, change your mind. Right?

[ToHellWithMe]

A word about arguing. It's best done in an academic, intellectual way rather than getting angry and trying to show someone else a thing or two. And as a rational person, you're willing to look at evidence contrary to your position, and if the evidence warrants it, change your mind. Right?

Knowing the quality of the "evidence" I would likely be receiving, I for one would not offer to even consider it. If it happened to be interesting enough, sure I would take a look. But only if.

 

EDIT: Hell, knowing the nature of most people, I would not even expect pieces of evidence in a manageable size but whole fucking books that I'd be expected to read and big manipulative men I'd be expected to meet and be talked down by. And if I wouldn't, I would be just as shamelessly slapped back with the fact that I ever promised to consider things. You know, as they say: “Give the devil a little finger, and he'll take the whole hand.”

[25YearsLater]

 Yes, I'm sure you know best.  I did, too, when I was 18 and knew everything

 

I'm pretty sure this was uncalled for.

 

 

I'm not so sure.  

 

He said, "Maybe I'm just stubborn, but I don't like to just roll over and play dead in arguments. I zone out, yes, but I don't agree with something I know is wrong just to curtail a debate."

 

I never suggested playing dead in arguments, or agreeing with something he knows is wrong.  I suggested not to have the arguments in the first place.

 

So it seems to me that either he didn't read what I wrote, or if he did, he misinterpreted it.

 

It further seems to me that the motivation for these debates, at least from FFW's point of view, is to somehow validate and affirm his position in his own eyes.  Personally, I think it's unlikely that conflict will achieve that, much less in his dad's eyes which is almost certainly unachievable.  I think it would be more productive to recognise that conflict will change nothing, and instead concentrate on doing the really important things, namely getting on with his life and in particular his studies.

 

My view would have been different when I was 18, and, as I say, knew everything.  It was important to me then, to win every argument, to justify every position, to beat my opponents into logical submission.  Later I learned that not only was that not possible, it had a corrosive effect on my relationships which I bitterly regret in hindsight.

 

 

 

I'd like to add that sometimes enmity is necessary. If at some point peace is made, it doesn't mean that it necessarily could have been established any earlier. I doubt trust can be formed from thin air. Respect has to be mutual. Also, everyone has to deal with their own internal shit first.

 

 

You may be right that enmity is necessary.  Certainly children do sometimes need to become their parents' enemies in order to establish their growing independence.  I would buy that if he was 14/15, not so much at 18, but I absolutely concede that I may be wrong.

 

Mutual trust and respect aren't available, here, however, as I read the situation from the limited information available.  So I think it's unrealistic to think that entering into these debates is going to do anything except create entrenched bad feeling.

 

Anyway, what do I know.  Go ahead, fight if it makes you feel better.  Best of luck.

[Sheerbliss]

 

A word about arguing. It's best done in an academic, intellectual way rather than getting angry and trying to show someone else a thing or two. And as a rational person, you're willing to look at evidence contrary to your position, and if the evidence warrants it, change your mind. Right?

Knowing the quality of the "evidence" I would likely be receiving, I for one would not offer to even consider it. If it happened to be interesting enough, sure I would take a look. But only if.

 

EDIT: Hell, knowing the nature of most people, I would not even expect pieces of evidence in a manageable size but whole fucking books that I'd be expected to read and big manipulative men I'd be expected to meet and be talked down by. And if I wouldn't, I would be just as shamelessly slapped back with the fact that I ever promised to consider things. You know, as they say: “Give the devil a little finger, and he'll take the whole hand.”

 

Looking at evidence to the contrary is what a person does to learn new things and discover mistakes. Since FFW has come here looking for materials to shore up his position, it doesn't sound like he's done much research.

 

One of my aunts gave me The Case for Christ. When I wasn't busy, I wrote, paragraph by paragraph, the logical fallacies in the book and mailed it to her. It was a nice exercise in critical thinking. It didn't damage our relationship. For someone pursuing a degree, doing such a critique (between semesters) shouldn't be a hard exercise. (And no, I didn't send my aunt The God Delusion.)

 

As for a meeting, FFW has said that his father's friends seem to be staying out of it. Smart guys. 

[mymistake]

Wait, what?

I found the point in your previous post very insightful: why debate? And if debate, perhaps try that meta road.

But what you give now is debate ammunition.

 

My advise is still not to debate with your own parents.

 

 

However FW came to us lacking information and I will be happy to help him find that information.  My hope is that he keeps it to himself.  But I think it is important to understand the issue of morality vs. religion.  

[ToHellWithMe]

You may be right that enmity is necessary. Certainly children do sometimes need to become their parents' enemies in order to establish their growing independence. I would buy that if he was 14/15, not so much at 18, but I absolutely concede that I may be wrong.

 

Mutual trust and respect aren't available, here, however, as I read the situation from the limited information available. So I think it's unrealistic to think that entering into these debates is going to do anything except create entrenched bad feeling.

 

Anyway, what do I know. Go ahead, fight if it makes you feel better. Best of luck.

With this said, I feel like conceding something as well. It's the same as FarflungWanderer's concession: it really might just be my stubbornness. Still, the alternatives that I can conceive of seem to me to entail something very unpleasant.

I don't think my parents or grandparents are on my side. It really is only me who is out there for me. Thus, I choose not to make peace, because one-sided peace would be surrendering, and I really don't want to surrender to something that I think does not wish me the best, except by lip service only.