Happy Atheist Forum

A couple of points made on other threads prompted these thoughts.

When I first started frequenting forums it was mainly out of curiosity and a desire to communicate with others of a like mind. After a while I started debating fundamentalist theists and learned the key vulnerabilities of their position and got quite good at shooting them down in my area of interest, biology. However after a while it became obvious that while I had undoubtedly shot them out of the sky they simply refused to stop flapping! So I sort of gave up as I was getting frustrated and annoyed and actually taking an unreasonable amount of that stress back out into real life.

So here's the thought. Should one stop debating fundamentalist theists and just present ones own world view and leave the discussion at that point, i.e. refute once and then just drop the argument?

The problem of course comes when your view is misrepresented, which means you can not just state it and leave, as it will doubtless be muddied by fallacy and misinformation if left undefended. This only applies if you want other people to read, and presumably be convinced by your argument, as you can't trust someone else to spot the weakness in a rebuttal to  your views.

Most times, they either quit when beaten, or fail to address points, which is the sign to you that further argument is pointless (I view the latter as a win by default sort of, if you play someone at tennis, and they refuse to hit your shots, in preference to serving their own, the umpire comes down on your side).

I haven't posted much on this site yet, but on WWGHA forums I struggle with this issue, as well.  What saves my sanity is going into the deal knowing that nothing I write will have the slightest impact on a fundie.  People believe what they will, and then find the evidence to support their beliefs...we already know this.  If you're taking stress back to work, then you're taking it too personally (IMHO).  

Sometimes I let the posts get to me, as well.  And it's then that I have to remind myself that I'm looking at a computer screen and reading words from someone I don't know, and will most likely never know.

Quote from: "sammylama"I haven't posted much on this site yet, but on WWGHA forums I struggle with this issue, as well.  What saves my sanity is going into the deal knowing that nothing I write will have the slightest impact on a fundie.  People believe what they will, and then find the evidence to support their beliefs...we already know this.  If you're taking stress back to work, then you're taking it too personally (IMHO).  

Sometimes I let the posts get to me, as well.  And it's then that I have to remind myself that I'm looking at a computer screen and reading words from someone I don't know, and will most likely never know.

Sage advice, (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg268.imageshack.us%2Fimg268%2F7475%2Fteah.gif&hash=974e3ef02680bc29a956eeb3296cd6601baa8c94)

Really, it is the ultimate form of trolling. Deep down, these people know what they are saying is ridiculous but they're so mentally unstable that if they admit their position is untenable, that means facing the fact they've wasted their entire (or a large proportion of) lives believing in the absurd. Many people find it difficult to admit they were wrong with simple things like an incorrect assumption or something. Doing so when their entire belief structure is at stake must be a scary concept. However, i've never been a creationist so i may be incorrect in my assumption.  

I think a lot of them are simply so scared that they spend all their effort coming up with super convoluted reasons as to why their theories must be correct and their only defence is to block out any and all reason.

I've stopped debating with creationists on YouTube because I doubt an anonymous person on teh intertubes will change their minds. That stuff has to come from within.

@karadan

I think you are talking a lot of sense there. Some people have invested so much emotion in their world view that to change it would require a virtually total psychophysical rebuilding of the person concerned. My nephew is one such person, he's a complete fruit loop and invests all that he is in being a Born Again Christian minister. He would have to completely reset his mind to get out of that situation.

Interesting! I just went to get a a link to his web site and it 404'ed! He's also disappeared of Twitter! I wonder what has happened? Hmmmm

Quote from: "karadan"I've stopped debating with creationists on YouTube because I doubt an anonymous person on teh intertubes will change their minds. That stuff has to come from within.

(Bold mine.)  I've just finished reading the first few chapters of Dan Barker's book "Godless" and he essentially says the same thing: that the conversion to non-theistic belief (at least for him) needs to be a private so that it can be more of an intellectual process rather than an emotional one.

Quote from: "Tank"So here's the thought. Should one stop debating fundamentalist theists and just present ones own world view and leave the discussion at that point, i.e. refute once and then just drop the argument?

As long as one wishes to stay in forums like this, I say no. Keep going. It's not just the opponent you're addressing. You're addressing atheists who do not yet have the knowledge you've gleaned and are sharing. You're also addressing every one of the lurkers, theists or not. You never know when and who you've planted the seed of reason into.

^^^^^

I'd rep this post if I could.

Quote from: "Gawen"

Quote from: "Tank"So here's the thought. Should one stop debating fundamentalist theists and just present ones own world view and leave the discussion at that point, i.e. refute once and then just drop the argument?

As long as one wishes to stay in forums like this, I say no. Keep going. It's not just the opponent you're addressing. You're addressing atheists who do not yet have the knowledge you've gleaned and are sharing. You're also addressing every one of the lurkers, theists or not. You never know when and who you've planted the seed of reason into.

Great post.

Its worth pointing out that many more people read what we post on the various atheist forums than actually take part in discussions. Practically all of the people who take part in the discussions- atheists and theists- know what they think and are unlikely to change their minds. But this is not true of the spectators. I'd guess that quite a few people lurk on forums like this one because they haven't made their minds up.

So arguing with religious crazies is worthwhile, so long as its done in public. Arguing with them in private is a waste of time.

Quote from: "Gawen"As long as one wishes to stay in forums like this, I say no. Keep going. It's not just the opponent you're addressing. You're addressing atheists who do not yet have the knowledge you've gleaned and are sharing. You're also addressing every one of the lurkers, theists or not. You never know when and who you've planted the seed of reason into.

Good point(s).

But I gotta tell y'all. I sympathise with Tank. I've been doing this for a long time. Seen the same 'ol theistic arguments 1000's of times. Replied to the same 'ol theistic arguments 100's of times. And I get burnt out. I even get discouraged. But no longer. I'll continue to do this just because I may make a difference to someone that never posts. On top of that, the lurkers...well, some of them will undoubtably talk with others about what they've read here and other places.

We make a difference. We just don't see it very much at all.

We are the foot soldiers in the war against irrationality.

Absolutely NOT, you should never give in, you should NEVER simply accept the religous as "innocent" or not harmful.  Religions, even those who proclaim to be peaceful, are in fact just breeding grounds for radicalism.  Even if we resort to strong words against theism, NEVER has an atheist bombed someone, stoned them, beheaded them, burned them at the stake, or crucified them in the name of Atheism.

In America today, there is a fundamentalist uprising of evangelical beliefs that are rapidly becoming the "Norm" for American Christians.  The Ted Haggartys and the Oral Roberts, and those like Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, have actually called upon the Christian Right to rise up and take back America as a Christian nation.  There is talk that in America only Christians should have the right to vote or hold office, and that atheists and homosexuals, just to name two groups, should be persecuted and put to death.  There was recently a lawsuit filed against an American University, in it a well known and "respected" preacher argued that universities that have a non-discrimination policy for groups like gays and minorities, actually deny the Christians their religious freedom to discriminate against these groups.  Because it is their "religiously held views" that these groups are "evil", Christians have a right to hold them in contempt and to deny them equality in all things.

This is why we must fight to educate those who have been abused as children by religion.  I believe that forcing a small child to believe in a certain religion is tatamount to child abuse.  If we were to say a child were a Christian child, no one would blink an eye, but say that a child is a Marxist child or a Communist child and the parents would be held up for scrutiny, because religion has been given a free pass.  Well, no more I say!  We must stand against fanatics, we must stand against religion, we must educate and free the minds of all that we can.  We mustn't simply hide in the shadows or the closet.

Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from criticism!

QuoteNEVER has an atheist bombed someone, stoned them, beheaded them, burned them at the stake, or crucified them in the name of Atheism.

Stalin did work thousands of Anabaptists and others to death due solely to their religious affiliation, according to Solzhenitsyn in Gualg Archipelago.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteNEVER has an atheist bombed someone, stoned them, beheaded them, burned them at the stake, or crucified them in the name of Atheism.

Stalin did work thousands of Anabaptists and others to death due solely to their religious affiliation, according to Solzhenitsyn in Gualg Archipelago.

Yeah, its quite true that the Marxists have done hideous things in the name of state atheism- the Chinese attack on Tibetan Buddhism is another example.

Having said that, I'd tend to view Marxism as a kind of mutant religion. It has its sacred texts, its heresies and its martyrs. And its deity is the state- an infinitely more dangerous object of worship than the imaginary friend that christians believe in. For unlike yahweh, the state is very real, and very powerful. The paradise that the marxist holy books promise- the withering away of the state and the communist utopia- is just as illusory as its christian equivalent. Freedom cannot be achieved through the instruments of slavery.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

QuoteNEVER has an atheist bombed someone, stoned them, beheaded them, burned them at the stake, or crucified them in the name of Atheism.

Stalin did work thousands of Anabaptists and others to death due solely to their religious affiliation, according to Solzhenitsyn in Gualg Archipelago.

Yeah, but Thump, Stalin did this not for "atheism" but for his brand of political ideology...that being Stalinist Communism.

I agree that he was likely more concerned about eliminating a rival to the Orthodox Church with which he'd made a wartime deal to secure their patriotism, and that the persecution of the religious minorities was not based on atheist but rather secular motives.

The fact remains that it was their religion that caused their death.

So far as discussing the religious aspects of Leninism/Stalinism, I am in broad agreement, but again, that doesn't obviate my point:  An atheist has indeed killed a human based on the victim's religious denomination.  

"Never", like "always", is rarely a good choice of wording.

I think that what the Soviet example demonstrates is that the problem is not so much religion per se as faith. Systems of thought which are based on faith rather than reason and rational inquiry are always dangerous, and if possible will normally try to:

a) Destroy competing faiths
and
b) Distort science in the interests of maintaining the faith.

In my view, there is a clear parallel between creationism and the Lysenko case. Both are examples of faith-based ideologies opposing science which conflicts with some alleged 'higher truth'.

Communism is/was a secular faith that drew heavily from the well-established model of christianity. Now that it has fallen, religion is once again the main enemy of free thought.

Agreed.   If you analyze it memetically, Communism is simply a meme which is highly efficient at eliminating competitors.