[I'm not entirely sure, but I may possibly have tried posting this OP in Another Place. If so, it didn't lead to any very interesting discussions, but I'm arrogant enough still to think that it might have done. So here it is ...]

I’m wondering if, in our debates with Christians, we atheists adopt the wrong strategy. Or, putting it a bit less strongly, I’m wondering if there might be useful alternative strategies. Certainly, I’d be interested to hear other opinions.

Suppose that we, for the sake of argument, conceded a good deal of what Christians claim. That is, suppose we said to them: ‘I don’t necessarily agree with what you say, but let’s assume that you’re right and see where the argument does (or doesn’t) lead.’

Suppose we conceded the First Cause argument: ‘OK – suppose that there can’t be an infinite regress of causes and effects, and that there has to be an uncaused First Cause.’

Or suppose that we conceded the Fine Tuning argument: ‘OK – suppose that the only possible explanation is that some Great Intelligence decided what the cosmological constants were to be.’

Or suppose that we conceded the Objective Morality argument: ‘OK – suppose that when we say “cannibalism is wrong” we are stating a fact, like “grass is green”.’

Or (speaking personally, this one really does break my heart!) suppose that we even conceded Intelligent Design: ‘OK – suppose that living things are the result of intelligent design, by some conscious intelligence’.

Even if we conceded all this to our opponents, as far as I can see, they are still a very long way from being able to demonstrate the truth of the basic tenets of traditional Christianity: there exists personal God who is deeply concerned for the welfare and behaviour of us humans; the same God has laid down a particular set of rules for human conduct; he became a man in the person of Jesus, and died to save us from our sins, etc.

In fact, just about the only arguments we couldn’t concede are those which claim that the Bible has a special status as a source of information.

What I’m suggesting is that when we atheists (not unreasonably!) argue all these other issues we divert attention from other huge weaknesses in the case for Christianity. It’s as if we atheists are implying: ‘If you lot could win some, or all, of the arguments about the First Cause, Fine Tuning, Objective Morality, Intelligent Design, then it would follow that Christianity is true.’ But that seems definitely not to be the case.

Indeed, would any of the neighbourhood Christians care to comment, or rise to the challenge? Suppose somebody makes all the concessions mentioned above. Where do you go from there? How do you go on to demonstrate the truth of Christianity?

Pointless, really. Historical accounts of what's in the bible are largely dubious (to say the least), which is one reason why there are so many variations of christianity. But the issue of a supreme conscious/powerful being as "god" is fundamental to atheism/theism. This is what's at the root of religious belief/non belief so to fanny about hypothetically conceding arguments as you've listed above sort of misses the point, don't you think?

Edit: just re-wording it a bit.

It depends what your goal is. Presumably you think that the most important point to make is that Christianity is totally flawed an unproven and I would agree that what you suggest could be a good way to show theists how much they actually have to demonstrate before anyone can reasonably accept their position.

I do think this is taking the long approach and would be more suitable for a proper debate rather than quick back-and-forth in a forum. Actually when it's done properly, refuting a particular point and then granting it only to refute the next one is a powerful way to debate.

amyonyango wrote:Pointless, really. Historical accounts of what's in the bible are largely dubious (to say the least), which is one reason why there are so many variations of christianity. But the issue of a supreme conscious/powerful being as "god" is fundamental to atheism/theism. This is what's at the root of religious belief/non belief so to fanny about hypothetically conceding arguments as you've listed above sort of misses the point, don't you think?

Not at all, I think he has a point.

Much as we may not like it theists come in all sorts of flavours, even Muslims. They are individual people with their own personal ways of thinking and their own beliefs. You could almost say, that the only thing they have in common is a belief in God.

Given that it is incumbent on us to determine what sort of theist they are. One on the dangers on forums where have a limited opportunity to actually converse with someone is that we will make assumptions to fill the gaps, and these often turn out to be wrong.

The same applies to the particular strategy we use with a theist, the more it can be tailored to hit the hot button of the other side the better result we will get I believe.

Of course, if the aim is to have a good ol’ slanging match with a nice fat chew toy then any strategy will do. I wouldn't say our strategy is wrong but we need to give ourselves more choices.

John

z8000783 wrote:Given that it is incumbent on us to determine what sort of theist they are. One on the dangers on forums where have a limited opportunity to actually converse with someone is that we will make assumptions to fill the gaps, and these often turn out to be wrong.

Why is it up to us to determine the type of theist?

I think that going around in circles to determine this and concede that gives more weight to the theists. Getting direct to the point makes it obvious we know what we think and we're not going to mess around attempting to lure someone into a false sense of polite namby pamby discussion.

Atheism means no god. That's a simple concept and by definition displays the viewpoint that an Atheist does not subscribe to any religious belief as they, by definition, require a god or gods or supernatural entity to make them a religion.

I know that a religious person believes in a god or god. As an Atheist I don't have any belief. I can argue my case without conceding anything and I don't see why any Atheist should concede anything - even for "clarification purposes", although I don't see how conceding anything necessarily means clarifying an argument.

amyonyango wrote:

z8000783 wrote:Given that it is incumbent on us to determine what sort of theist they are. One on the dangers on forums where have a limited opportunity to actually converse with someone is that we will make assumptions to fill the gaps, and these often turn out to be wrong.

Why is it up to us to determine the type of theist?

Because if you don't you will end up going round in circles.

John

But surely you'll go around in circles with the alternative method of conceding this and refuting that? If I start from the view that a theist believes in a supernatural entity and an atheist doesn't and construct my argument from that standpoint it's got to be the most economical way to debate theists.

amyonyango wrote:But surely you'll go around in circles with the alternative method of conceding this and refuting that? If I start from the view that a theist believes in a supernatural entity and an atheist doesn't and construct my argument from that standpoint it's got to be the most economical way to debate theists.

It depends on whether you're debating theism or Christianity. The point I'm making in the OP is that the Christian hasn't simply got to demonstrate the truth of theism; he's got to demonstrate lots of of other things too. I'm suggesting that it might sometimes by a good idea to take theism, or deism, for granted (for the purposes of debate) and move on to some of these other things.

amyonyango wrote:But surely you'll go around in circles with the alternative method of conceding this and refuting that? If I start from the view that a theist believes in a supernatural entity and an atheist doesn't and construct my argument from that standpoint it's got to be the most economical way to debate theists.

And if that works well in the debates you have then that is a good strategy.

John

Will S wrote:It depends on whether you're debating theism or Christianity.

It's a good point: Christianity is easier to pull apart than deism, since it makes precise claims, and has holy books that can be examined, and refuted.

That said, I've met plenty of self-identifying Christians who are, to all intents and purposes, atheists. Even some who come out and say that they are atheists. (I love the CofE at times!) They won't be knocked by attacks on the inerrancy of the Bible, as they've been there, done that, and got the Sea of Faith t-shirt.

I don't have a strategy. I don't have a goal, either. I'm just an atheist. My goal is to live as pleasant a life as possible, so I guess my strategy involves walking to the hot dog cart at lunch today to enjoy a hot sausage in the sunshine. I feel good about that strategy.

The theists can do and think what they like, unless they want to take my hot sausage away, and then my arguments are going to be focused on their action, not their beliefs.

Harmless Eccentric wrote:I don't have a strategy. I don't have a goal, either. I'm just an atheist. My goal is to live as pleasant a life as possible, so I guess my strategy involves walking to the hot dog cart at lunch today to enjoy a hot sausage in the sunshine. I feel good about that strategy.

The theists can do and think what they like, unless they want to take my hot sausage away, and then my arguments are going to be focused on their action, not their beliefs.

So why are you here then?

John

z8000783 wrote:
So why are you here then?

John

Here at RS, you mean? To learn more about science, of course, and have a pleasant chat. Why would I be? If I wanted to eliminate worldwide theism, I'm pretty sure I couldn't do it through a message board.

Harmless Eccentric wrote:

z8000783 wrote:
So why are you here then?

John

Here at RS, you mean? To learn more about science, of course, and have a pleasant chat. Why would I be? If I wanted to eliminate worldwide theism, I'm pretty sure I couldn't do it through a message board.

That's fair enough. However people have different reasons for being here, probably as many as there are people.

John

If your strategy includes the intention of converting believers, yes, you're doing it wrong. If your strategy includes posting topics for atheists in the theism forum, yes, you're doing it wrong.

As for varying my strategy, I do. Those whose posts are either laden with agenda, or just ignorant nonsense from people who should know better, I show no mercy. Those who ask honest questions with a genuine desire to learn, I try to guide and aid in any way I can. It's a tactic that works well for me, and contrary to what some think, I have caught plenty of flies, both with honey and with vinegar.

Having watched the real big hitters here (I don't consider myself among them) in action for some time, I have formed my own conclusions about what works and when. Some may not like my style, which is fine. It is effective though, as evidenced sufficiently for my purposes by the messages I've had from those who've taken something away from both approaches and points in between. That's why I have no real interest in the expression of negativity about my approach, regardless of who voices it. I know it works. Some people need, in the words of one of my good friends, to be wrapped in warm fluff, while others need to be beaten about the head with the cold, hard brick of reality.

Will S wrote:[I'm not entirely sure, but I may possibly have tried posting this OP in Another Place. If so, it didn't lead to any very interesting discussions, but I'm arrogant enough still to think that it might have done. So here it is ...]

I’m wondering if, in our debates with Christians, we atheists adopt the wrong strategy. Or, putting it a bit less strongly, I’m wondering if there might be useful alternative strategies. Certainly, I’d be interested to hear other opinions.

Suppose that we, for the sake of argument, conceded a good deal of what Christians claim. That is, suppose we said to them: ‘I don’t necessarily agree with what you say, but let’s assume that you’re right and see where the argument does (or doesn’t) lead.’

Suppose we conceded the First Cause argument: ‘OK – suppose that there can’t be an infinite regress of causes and effects, and that there has to be an uncaused First Cause.’

Or suppose that we conceded the Fine Tuning argument: ‘OK – suppose that the only possible explanation is that some Great Intelligence decided what the cosmological constants were to be.’

Or suppose that we conceded the Objective Morality argument: ‘OK – suppose that when we say “cannibalism is wrong” we are stating a fact, like “grass is green”.’

Or (speaking personally, this one really does break my heart!) suppose that we even conceded Intelligent Design: ‘OK – suppose that living things are the result of intelligent design, by some conscious intelligence’.

Even if we conceded all this to our opponents, as far as I can see, they are still a very long way from being able to demonstrate the truth of the basic tenets of traditional Christianity: there exists personal God who is deeply concerned for the welfare and behaviour of us humans; the same God has laid down a particular set of rules for human conduct; he became a man in the person of Jesus, and died to save us from our sins, etc.

In fact, just about the only arguments we couldn’t concede are those which claim that the Bible has a special status as a source of information.

What I’m suggesting is that when we atheists (not unreasonably!) argue all these other issues we divert attention from other huge weaknesses in the case for Christianity. It’s as if we atheists are implying: ‘If you lot could win some, or all, of the arguments about the First Cause, Fine Tuning, Objective Morality, Intelligent Design, then it would follow that Christianity is true.’ But that seems definitely not to be the case.

Indeed, would any of the neighbourhood Christians care to comment, or rise to the challenge? Suppose somebody makes all the concessions mentioned above. Where do you go from there? How do you go on to demonstrate the truth of Christianity?

It does really depend on what the ultimate aim is. In my encounters here and elsewhere I find that a host of techniques are employed to a variety of different ends. Often mockery and polemic- with arguments taken from the angry atheist's book of parody- lead the way, indicating that torment is more of a priority than persuasion.
Those such as yourself who take a more philosophical line may not always convince, but you certainly raise serious questions and put forward very clear lines of reasoning in a manner which can not be so easily shrugged off. If the ultimate aim is to turn everyone into a hater of religion the angry brigade can only reach so far, but all those who actually enter into a two way conversation are more likely to make us believers think more carefully about our picture of the world.

It should also be pointed out that some of the motivation behind my style is to make others look more reasonable.

Yes, I agree with your view, Hack. Different theists will respond better/worse to carrot/stick approaches.

But with reference to the OP's opinion that a good strategy would be to concede various arguments and see how the theists do at explaining the rest of their religions' claims, this simply wouldn't work for me.

I have not studied the bible or any other religious text. I do not know the intricate details of what christians/muslims/hindus/buddists belive. As as atheist I am concerned with the non existence of a god-like character. This is enough for me to know I am atheist and to have a firm argument against any theist.

My aim is not to convert people or to start debates with religious believers. My responses and posts as an atheist don't include a strategy or desire a pre-meditated outcome.

I'm just me

hackenslash wrote:It should also be pointed out that some of the motivation behind my style is to make others look more reasonable.

You mean this? -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_cop/bad_cop

iamthereforeithink wrote:

hackenslash wrote:It should also be pointed out that some of the motivation behind my style is to make others look more reasonable.

You mean this? -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_cop/bad_cop

And the good cop?

...Goldenmane? TimONeill?