When I first read the post
If I Wanted to Argue with Atheists by SirNickDon, I was sympathetic with his points about objectivism as he described it, very much agreeing that there is no neutral ground on which we can stand due to the fact that while we may live in the midst of a reality that has certain properties regardless of our perceptions, one such basic property of reality is that the propositions we formulate regarding that reality are inextricably bound up with the limitations of our traditionally inherited points-of-view and are inherently a practice we impose upon that same reality rather than being a perfectly accurate representation of it.
I was less sympathetic with the allegation that Christians and atheists do not occupy the same world and the implication that Christians and atheists are necessarily talking past each other in certain contexts. It is true that no matter how we squirm, the Problem of the Criterion, the Problem of Infinite Regress, and perhaps other key issues in the realm of epistemology are serious difficulties that both theists and non-theists both must face if we are to be honest with ourselves, and that this might be a good reason for "epistemilogical humility". It is also true that Christians and atheists generally have very different responses to those problems. For example, with regard to the Problem of the Criterion, we could go so far as to say that Christians often take a particularist approach and atheists often take a methodist approach in the sense that Christians generally wish to start with particular beliefs about God and Scripture and then develop a method for determining what can be known whereas atheists generally wish start with rational or empirical methods and from there develop particular propositions. On the other hand, those important differences do not necessarily detract from the ability of atheists and Christians to dialogue in a productive way.
I've had some very productive dialogues with atheists precisely because I recognize that we do occupy the same world and share many of the same tools for perceiving and arriving at conclusions about it. Of course, I've had some spectacularly non-productive dialogues with atheists too. I call these encounters arguing with atheists rather than a dialogue precisely because they are non-productive. Interestingly, my reason for not wanting to argue with atheists is exactly the same as my reason for not wanting to argue with Christians; it's simply not productive. Some of you may have noticed that this doesn't always stop me from arguing with either party. I'll sometimes wade in with the +2 Hammer of Intellectual Honesty on occasion when either a Christian or an atheist is taking gross liberties with the facts for the sake of taking shots at their favored intellectual whipping boy. (I am improving my patience with such people slowly.) I don't mind if people have a biased perspective, and I freely admit my own, but I have no love for a prejudicial perspective in which it's concluded that another group is evil despite plenty of evidence otherwise. And there are both Christians and atheists with prejudicial perspectives towards each other, folks willing to contend that atheists are immoral commies wanting to destroy us or that Christians are unintelligent fascists wanting to ruin our lives. Such perspectives do not reflect either the expected rationality and objectivity of an atheist or the expected love and compassion of a Christian.
Thankfully, there are plenty of both Christians and atheists who can manage to have a productive dialogue with each other and perhaps even develop a sense of mutual respect for each other. I've met several atheists that I ended up being on very good terms with. There was one gentleman that I had a great deal of regard for because of both the learning he brought to any discussion because of his degree in philosophy and his personal integrity, and he confessed to me that although he and I had debated in the same circle for a couple of years, he had never debated me personally because he was pretty sure that I would win. I was flattered that a person with considerably more philosophical education than me would make such a positive assessment of my abilities, but I also had to wonder if he wasn't illustrating a serious problem with the way we view debate. If we want to get a win over the other person, to show them in a bad light and/or make ourselves look good, maybe that's why we so often don't uphold the ideals of either Christians or atheists during debate and as a result tend to argue rather than dialogue productively.
Comments (38)
I guess I usually "win" the actual debates that I have, but sometimes it dissolves into some kind of b*tch fight, like you said.
I have friends of all different beliefs and walks of life, and we never argue over religion. It's fun to learn more about what they believe instead of debating with them.
Whether we are able to admit it or not, big egos lurk below the surface of things, & admitting "i don't know" or "i was offbase there" or "mistaken" is just outside the realm of reality for most of us regardless our philosophical mentality. Humility is probably all but an absent quality within an atheist context, but I have found more often as not to be absent within the mentality of most 'Christians' & that bothers me a great deal. I guess it should not surprise me though, seeing that most people are still very human even following their 'conversion'. "Let this mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus...who made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant....He humbled himself & became obedient to death." (Philippians 2:1-8). How very difficult it is to walk that same road after HIm!!! LAW--
Dude, you totally get a +2 bonus on turning checks against atheists, 'cause you obviously have more than 5 ranks in Knowledge (religion).
I have blundered into debates with atheists many times, expecting to start with shared premises and reason to conclusions together, only to find most of them hostile, insulting, and unable to reason even at an elementary level. More often than not the atheists I have engaged have just thrown insults and abuse instead of reasoning. The rational, respectful atheist, willing to actually engage in logical discourse, is a rare gem, and my favorite kind of person to debate with. But like I said, very rare. So to avoid abuse, I generally don't even try anymore. There is a huge gulf between atheists and theists that can only be bridged through logic, and if that's not there, then there is not point whatever in having the 'debate.'
I'm sure closed-minded Christians can be equally frustrating to logical atheists, though. I have seen the arguments some of them use: "God said it and you're going to hell", basically, and that's just as bad.
I like this post and the other "not wanting to argue with atheists" post. You both make some very good points! I appreciate that you point out the difference between discussing/debating and arguing. I love honest, intellectual (and sometimes slightly emotional) discussions. It's a great eye-opener and teaching tool. However, arguing and fighting usually get nowhere fast. If they do get anywhere, it's rarely anywhere good.
The bottom line: either you believe or you don't...
@MrsDarcy_MrsDarcy_MrsDarcy@xanga - I have had just the oppsite experience with atheist; they are every smart, intellectually engaging, rational and reasoning--BUT that is very much the problem
Logic doesn't measure up against faith, spirit--the intangible.
I already understand that I will a lose a battle with the atheist becasue the things of the flesh cannot comprehend the things of the spirit. I'm just responsible for the information that I give them.
Word.
Debates are often for the people listening. Not convincing your opponent is a rather limited standard for assessing the value of such discussions.
@InTheThin@xanga - I guess I usually "win" the actual debates that I have...
That's a farcical claim.
In these blog or forum discussions, there is no impartial judicator to assess and judge the "debates." So yeah-- I bet you "win" a lot of your "debates"-- being your own "impartial" judge.
@Mr_Turniphead@xanga - ...Humility is probably all but an absent quality within an atheist context...
Awsome. Since, humility, you know is a decided Christian or theistic quality. Can't have humility with the conjured image of a cross-bound Jesus.
Which one is the Christian and which one is the atheist in the picture?
@musterion99@xanga - I think the one in the blue is the christian, and the one in orange is atheist. That is, if they're even one and another... it could just be a couple guys sitting chatting about anything, used solely for visual aid (most likely).
However, if it IS a christian and atheist discussing, then I think the christian is explaining his love for his religion, because he knows what he believes in... he has a book written about it (Bible)! ...and the atheist is using his intellect and reasoning, pondering and analyzing the context and implications of the christian's ideas. Whether or not he responds positively/productively, or negatively/nonproductively is up to his personality and thought processes.
Your question was probably rhetorical, but I like to think about these kinds of things.
@nodnarbassoon@xanga - Your question was probably rhetorical, but I like to think about these kinds of things.
haha - Yeah you do. The question wasn't rhetorical. More sarcastic.
definitely don't argue with other beliefs. it's only going to start a debate for others. i had a talk about this with my best friend yesterday.. how he felt about his gf being atheist. he said that it shouldn't matter,
but it surely does matter to me. my beliefs are what makes me me.
Wow. I'm kinda stunned that this actually got featured.
@StrokeofThought@xanga - Who said anything about convincing one's opponent?
@nodnarbassoon@xanga - why does the atheist have to be the one crying?
I love the post and recommended it (as I usually do with most posts on the questioning of why things are the way they are) but here for a better reason than usual. The OP brought up so many great issues with the concept to theological debate between two people of differing opinions, and it could actually be applied to any similar situation that involves strongly felt beliefs and convictions.
I recognize some names here from other threads lately ( looking at you, @musterion99@xanga) and it's nice to see familiar faces here.
Anyway, let's get down to brass tacks here...
I feel the same way about arguing with someone of a different belief set, especially when they are condescending and will not afford you the same opportunity to make your point, as you did for them. It's hard to be patient with people like this, and it's not a christian or an atheist thing. It is, as @Mr_Turniphead@xanga said, an ego thing.
It's hard to find anyone who has a small enough ego to admit that they may not have all the answers. I'm in the position, at the moment, of trying to get my ego down small enough that I can have these kinds of discussions without being snooty because I know I don't have the answers to everything. I've said it before, that I'd be welcome to be proven wrong in my assumptions. And I think everyone who decides to engage in a discussion of that nature should prepare themselves in the same manner.
The problem then becomes that most Christians feel that they DO have the answers (or a way to get them at least) and most Atheists are certain everything can be reasoned without a supernatural explanation. Big egos from both sides.
So what does discussion become? An argument of who is wrong and why.
A theological discussion should be just that; a discussion of different beliefs with no pressing past a certain point, in a manner as so to learn more about how and why the person opposite of you believes what they believe. No proselytizing allowed. No attempt to make converts. No judging.
Unfortunately this is unproductive when it comes right down to it. Most Christians want to win souls for Christ. Most Atheists want to make Christians realize that what they believe is not logical.
@MrsDarcy_MrsDarcy_MrsDarcy@xanga knows the sad truth; the rare breed of either party that is willing to converse without resorting to name calling is hard to come by because to believe fully in either or (for those who are not just doing it for a reason other than the actual beliefs), you have to, in a sense, be militant. It's what the teachings of any movement demand (in most cases). (And I say that last sentence loosely, because I am certain someone will come along to say Buddhism is non-violent and hippies are non-violent, and so forth. But hopefully you understand what I mean by that last sentence.)
@AdrianRamirez@xanga - he doesn't look like he's crying to me... I thought he was thinking.
atheists know the Bible. they know it just as much as any christian that knows it really well. just as much as pastors. they have to in order to stand their ground and know what they believe in and why.
just as we christians should. if you know the Bible, what you believe, and why you believe it, then why are you scared to argue with an atheists. God knows the real winner.
@missstewart09@xanga - my aunt said the same thing to me, as we were discussing conversation between Christians and Atheists. I found that kind of interesting because I'd never thought that before. In fact I don't think I've read the bible more in my life (in terms of frequency) than now. Kinda funny, isn't it?
@nodnarbassoon@xanga - I don't think I've ever thought in that position, nor in the one that has the guy looking perplexed, eyes to the sky, with his hand grasping his chin
@missstewart09@xanga - atheists know the Bible. they know it just
as much as any christian that knows it really well. just as much as
pastors. they have to in order to stand their ground and know what they
believe in and why.
It might be true that some atheists know the bible better than some Christians but that's a very generalized statement. I've seen many atheists who think they are bible scholars, take isolated verses and completely apply wrong hermeneutics.
The Bible & Bible knowledge on either side is useless if it is used as a club to beat people senseless!!! I should know-----I've done enough of it in the past.---Sad, Sad that bitter Whale!! LAW
@Nous_Apeiron@xanga -
I took the word 'productive' in your post to mean that you furthered ground with your opponent. Ergo you judged some as being 'not productive.'