pariah

"you have to have faith. there is no evidence for god-thats why you need faith. but if you open your heart and give it to god with faith then god will give you the evidence you need"

how are u supposed to deal with this?? the xtian just basically told u there wasnt any proof for it...i usually come back with the IPU analogy to show them the evidence thing doesnt work but...ugh..

Elvithriel

Ask them if Santa Claus exists because of the faith of young children.

Aravnah Ornan

Maybe you can boil the argument down to its essentials -- "If you want to believe, then just believe, and then you'll find it much easier to believe." -- and then play it back to see whether the Christian can see how blatantly circular it is. If that doesn't work, ask whether adherents of competing religions don't get the same "evidence" from Allah, Brahma, etc.

diana

Good morning, pariahSS.

Depends on how much time and energy you want to put into it, I guess. And how willing the other person is to listen to your rebuttal.

I'm a questioner myself. Quite often, asking the right questions can lead your opponent into seeing--without you pointing it out so blatantly--why his argument is a poor one.

You have to have faith.
There is no evidence for God--that's why you need faith.
But if you open your heart and give it to God, then with faith God will give you all the evidence you need.

But I thought you just said there is no evidence....? So...which do you mean? Is there or isn't there? There's evidence only after you believe. Oh. I see. So if I first convince myself that Zeus exists, then I'll find evidence that it's true? You'll find evidence that a god exists, sure. But how would you know it was Zeus? How do you know yours is Jehovah?

The problem with question-answer sessions like this, though, is that they sometimes leave the believer with the impression that you've reached a stalemate. Sometimes they're effective, sometimes they aren't.

When they aren't, you can explain that their "reasoning" turns logic on its ear. Logic begins with the evidence and works toward a supportable conclusion. What they've just done is decided what conclusion they wanted to believe, then looked for reasons to believe it.

My mama called this "getting the cart before the horse."

The problem with doing it backwards like that is that it opens everything up to confirmation bias: the propensity to find those "evidences" that support your preferred conclusion and ignore all those that negate it. The plane crash that kills 200 but 1 is saved is a good example. People look at that one survivor and say, "God was with him." They forget the implication of that statement, though, when it comes to the 200 dead.

There are many smart-assed replies you can pop in there, too, but saying, "Let Jesus into my heart? Won't he clog my arteries? Does that require surgery?" doesn't really communicate anything but your disgust, presumed superiority and frustration.

Come to think of it, another thing that might help them see their "argument" through your eyes is ask them to trim out the poetic license: What, exactly, do you mean by "open my heart and give it to God"? I'm afraid I don't follow you.

This usually causes some struggle on their part, because this is merely a euphemism for stop questioning and just believe, which they'd rather not say, usually, because they can hear how stupid and gullible it sounds. Poetic beats gullible, which is why you hear shit like "open your heart to Jesus."

d

AJ113

:notworthy Diana!
Here's the keys to your new Mercedes, hon!

Unbeliever

Yeah, I sometimes come back with "OOOHHH, so that's why I never get anything for Christmas! So you're saying that if I believe in Santa Claus I would get something?"

Dosn't always work, but it sure is fun!

Infidelettante

The trouble is in trying to refute with logic what is in a wholly emotional context. The Theists' faith is not open to logical attack.
It is an emotional stance that is all but unassailable. Not untill their religion fails to supply this emotional content will they begin to question it.

JT

Koyaanisqatsi

No, it's exceedingly simple. Just come back with, "You're right! I give my heart to god and he has answered. All praise Allah!"

That should end the debate.

ComestibleVenom

Yea, it's absolutely necessary to switch gears on them. When they get stuck in the idea that an irreducible experience is the rational basis for God (a very common defensive position, utterly demolished by Wittgenstein's private language argument.) you want to be as polite and open as possible.

The only way to draw them into a deeper discussion about the roots of their belief is to be sympathetic. There is no other way to engage strongly religious people in meaningful discussion. They often feel vulnerable when their faith is challenged, and so you should be delicate with their feelings.

Treat them with the respect they deserve, realize that atheism is far from self-evident given the memetic durability of theism, and you can make a difference. The aim (and generally, the outcome) is not to produce unthinking atheists, but more critical theists.

Radcliffe Emerson

I have yet to come across an Xtian argument that isn't stupid.