Sometimes I start to reply to posts and by the time I get my point made I have written too much. I reread it and sometimes I scrap it. I have amended my viewpoint or thought of another angle. However I am happy with that because someone has said something to make me think.
That gave me an idea. Maybe rather that debating theists (I am always doing it) I will ask them to reply in writing to my points. After all they are always giving me crap to read.
So I did an interesting experiment today with some “doubters” before I tackle the deluded ones. I have been debating with them for a few weeks now. So rather than listen to more “But what if there really is a god?” or “How can you be so sure?” I suggested that they spend 15 minutes writing down what their beliefs actual were and WHY they believed them.
This compelled them into thinking about what they were writing. They had to “listen” to their own arguments. They were not just blindly repeating some mantra type answers.
They all found it more difficult to do than they had expected. I could see a lot of lines getting crossed out. However the surprise came when I asked each one in turn to read aloud what they had written. It sounded so immature. When one said “I believe in everlasting life after death”, he started laughing.
One could nearly hear them thinking “Is this what I actually believe?” I got more doubt sown today without saying a word. It would be interesting to see if these results could be replicated. Maybe I have been spending too much time perfecting arguments and rebuttals. Ok – they are needed but I will try this with the Witnesses next weekend.
The point is that because they were asked to write down what they believed they were forced to analyze it and confront themselves, rather than confront me and argue against me. If you analyze yourself you must use Reason, not Faith and the seed of Doubt is firmly planted – which is my only objective.
PS - Put up my “Science Dog” icon just in case anyone thought I was ugly :)
I became a Pastafarian minister in order to start arguments. It works very well. The theist asks "Pastafarian, what's that?" I explain the basic belief system (pirates, fsm, etc.) and then embellish it enough to make them have a confused expression. I say it with a very sincere look and solemn tone so they'll really begin to question me.
They usually express how silly my beliefs are. I ask why, just to bait them. Once they tell me why, I ask how my beliefs are different in the level of unprovability or silliness that theirs. I'm usually rewarded with silence. >=)
I am definitely trying this to see if I can get some sense into my family! Great idea man!
That does appear to be a very effective technique. The problem with it is, I wouldn't get to hear the sound of my own voice very much! :-)
That's a great idea... I also like to just throw this question out there. "If you really believe in a god....would you be willing to change religions in order to worship him?: I think it might be better if you turn the question around and ask.... "What would it take for you to leave your current religion and follow another?"
I've found that most folks don't want to even consider the possibility that their beliefs might be wrong. They also have a hard time coming up with anything that would sway them.
I like to ask it because its not a question of whether to believe in god or not... its a question that asks if they are willing to believe in god at all costs...even if it means leaving their current religion and adopting a new one.
Thanks Wesley - I have found that many Theists will utter things like "well at least they have Faith in a god" when talking about other religions. They see (blind) faith as a virtue even if the other party believes in a differnet god. It does not matter that it is the "wrong" god or maybe a false one.They still elevate this to a higher position than Atheism and consider them to be more moral than us godless fiends!!