Amos

Hello Bree, I am not preaching and never have preached to anyone here (I understand preaching to be for the sake of conversion).

My argument is that there is no God besides our concept of God and this very concept can land us in either heaven or hell because it does affect our mind where the concept God is conceived. How then can we deny the concept God if hell is staring us right in our face.

Writer@Large

The level of cognative dissonance is staggering.

Amos, you have been asked by both a moderator (Bree) and an Administrator (me) to stop derailing this topic. By being an active user at the IIDB, you have agreed to abide by the forum rules, which state in part:

--W@L

Amos

OK, sorry and I will resign from his thread.

Evil Milkman

No. Stop. Wait. Come back.

Soul Invictus

This is primarily for W@L and DC...

Although I see the points you make on how the line of questioning may be irrelevant, I guess I'm equally guilty of the same type of discussion, which may simply show my novice in engaging in religious discussion. My family is heavily religious and consistently try to sway me to being gung ho as I had been as a child, so naturally I'm prone to these type of discussions. I guess I'm an argumentative type because it bewilders me beyond recognition the logic (or illogic) behind the answers I get from them. I pose similar questions about the irrational concept of an all-powerful deity dooming people to hell or the fallacy of original sin (two people being accountable for the whole future). In my mind, I can ration that this doesn't follow. I guess as equally as they want to show me "the error of my ways" I wish to show them how faulty their reasoning is for some of the ideals they cherish so tightly. I guess I'm trying to show them how right I am, just as they are trying to do to me.

I was hoping the board could better articulate a more productive line of questioning because it feels like you win when you stump someone, but somehow a cop out answer comes around to attempt to dilute my point. What's an effective strategy of questioning that you all propose?

Jayjay

Cop-out answers... that's what religion is all about when you get to the bottom of it.

Writer@Large

We're all guilty of it. It's a typical approach, and one that feels right dealing with theists. They still believe in God, right? So if I hit them with the "hard questions" that deconverted me ... ! Speaking from experience, though, and after having been through such sessions before, especially with experienced apologists (ministers, etc), I know how flawed the approach really is, and how useless it is for both parties. It's one of the reasons I stopped participating in the Existences of God(s) forum.

I think Evil milkman would have more success with his original approach with his girlfriend, but not when she's sitting across the table from a youth pastor. And come to think of it, it hasn't ever worked on my wife ...

Exactly. Which is why giving the advantage to them--"let's assume God exists, and ... "--is the wrong way to go about it. If you're an atheist, every question you pose in a debate should be founded in the position that gods do not exist. Shift the burden of proof to them.

Honestly, I'm still pretty raw at this. I think, first of all, that it depends on the situation, which is why DC's proposed questions for EM worked so well--they centered not on the existence of gods, but on how he and his GF could reconcile their differences as theist and atheist, and how an atheist can be a good person, too.

In general, though, I find a good opening is to ask something like: "What have you seen/read/experienced that makes you persist in believing in a deity?" I personally try to refer to the Judeo-Christian God in the generic and unfamiliar, "a deity" or "a god," because I don't like to afford it status above every other equally mythological entity out there. Another good question is always something to the effect of: "How is your deity any more convincing, any more real, than, say, the Muslim deity or Hindu deities?" I guarentee you your average theist is no more well versed on those religions than you probably are, and maybe even worse; it's always useful to catch them in their ignorance, to essentially posit the question, "Well, if you haven't fully explored the Koran, how do you know that Mohommed wasn't the one true prophet of your god?"

Looking at the above, I'm not sure I'm articulating my method very well. But like I said, I'm still a bit raw in debate! I prefer the written page for making arguments.

--W@L

Rusting Car Bumper

The question is not strategy. The first question is what is the goal of all of this.

If you are running to strategy before running to find what you want to accomplish then you are likely not going anywhere.

Isn't it true that interpersonal relations with your family is more important than winning some minute philosophical point especially when winning that point won't change their minds anyway?

If you can show that you are moral, upstanding, good, productive and that you share many of the same values because of commonhumanity and not because of mere theological position then the minute philosophical points become irrelevant.

If *we* could do that effectively for even a minor part of Christendom then we would have accomplished something.

DC

Writer@Large

So, Evil Milkman ... how'd it go?

--W@L

Starboy

Yes, Evil, I am curious to know if you still have a girlfriend.