Zzyzx wrote:
.
Cephus wrote:
The problem is, debating Christians is ultimately pointless because they hold their beliefs emotionally, not rationally. Therefore it isn't possible to have an intellectual discussion with them because they care more about feeling good about the things they believe than having the things they believe actually be true.
Although religion tends to be emotionally held rather than rational or logical, not all adherents are immune to contrary information, evidence and argument. This is verified by the many who discard religious beliefs – including members of this Forum who discuss their journey of departure.
As one of the people who used to be religious and saw reality, I agree, but theists do that in spite of their faith, not because of it. And the question isn't "how to deconvert our Christian friends", it's how to debate them. Religion stops, or at least vastly slows a thinking mind. There's no way around that. Even for those of us who walked away from religion, we have to admit that before our departure, we didn't think about it very much and anyone who tried to debate religion got an emotional fight rather than a rational one.
Additionally, debating Christians here exposes defects in the belief system to hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of viewers (726 viewers in the past 24 hours). Many discover here, for the first time, that the gospels were not likely written by the famous people whose names were assigned centuries later – that there is no evidence that any of the 'miracles' attributed to Jesus actually happened – that there is no assurance that words attributed to Jesus or God were actually their words – etc.
But we already know those defects, what it rarely does is actually make believers admit to those defects. That's the trick. This isn't like having a scientific discussion where everyone cares about the evidence, we're talking about people who are deluded into living a fantasy life. They are not, in general, persuaded by evidence against their beliefs, or by the lack of evidence for their beliefs, they only care about how their beliefs make them feel. Some are better to talk to than others, but the overwhelming majority can't engage in an intelligent, rational discussion on their beliefs.
When viewers / members discover that they have not been told the truth or the whole truth by promoters of their religion (or its literature) they may well begin to understand and perhaps eventually accept that the religion is no more 'holy' than any other – and that all are based on what one person tells another (sometimes in writing).
But most of them won't discover that they haven't been told the truth, most of them, the overwhelming majority I would wager, simply don't care. The truth is irrelevant. Nothing you or I can ever say will make them change their mind because facts don't matter, only their emotions do. That's the point I was making. Talking to those people is a complete waste of time.
We are not likely to convince adversaries who are die-hard believers (at least for now); however, if what Non-Theists present is far more credible and convincing than the stories and claims of Theists, our debates are not 'ultimately pointless'.
Again, credibility means nothing to the die-hard believers, facts don't matter, evidence is irrelevant, and most of the reasonable believers, if such a thing really exists, have left. We're left arguing with fanatics most of the time. Is that a good use of our time? I'm not so sure.
