Atheist-Fundy Theist debate: Based only on fear?

Question

Why are people attacking each other's beliefs with anger and incredulity rather than giving helpful info? Is this debate based more on fear than the desire to enlighten?

Answer 1

Usually when people blather about evolution and how it's "garbage", I respond by posting many many links to credible sites that explain it. I also VERY rarely respond with invective and ad hom.

Answer 2

It appears to be based on an obsessive desire to be right and to make the other wrong, rather than fear.

It's a bit like a bunch of politians so called "debating" when their only real intention is to score points by putting the other guy down. There some on here who unfortunately are not asking questions because they desire a better understanding or to be enlightened. (Just like politicians.) But because they want to chop someone up.

I usually just avoid the crossfire and answer the questions that are questions... in the areas where I have some knowledge to share.

Usually if you give bullies no attention they give up .At least on this forum you can easily choose to ignore them.

Answer 3

Bill Craig wins the vast majority of his debates when judging the debating techniques and execution of his debates. When judging how valid his arguments are he loses all of them. Most opponents are poor or sometimes not at all prepared for the debate. They think it is going to be a debate as in the exchange of ideas and to reason who has the best arguments. But that is not at all what a Bill Craig debate is about. Craig has specifically stated in his book reasonable faith that he does not care about objective truth. If the objective truth conflicts with his religious truth he discards it. He is a master at cherry picking. He always finds some Atheist and/or scientist quote to do the talking for him and even if he would be proven wrong he will still say he only quoted but never claimed he supported it himself. Opponents should always ask him what he actually believes but he probably would find a way to answer that without answering it. Craig only uses about 6 arguments 5 of which he uses per debate. He has been using these arguments for decades now and has perfected the usage in such a way that he will never run out of his default stream of sophisms before the time of the debate is up. You cannot properly defeat him on the tiny details of the 5 topics before the end of the debate because he has perfected the flow of denials, mined quotes, red herrings, special pleading, argument from ignorance etc in such a way that in the 3 or 4 chances you get to go into detail you will never reach the bottom of his poor excuses barrel. When he is pressed to go into detail about a topic Craig can get into trouble like in his debate with Bart Ehrman about the resurrection which Ehrman won in my opinion.Sam Harris should have defeated Craig in the debate about morality but Harris chose instead of attacking Craig's position to put his time into telling about his own system of ethics so the audience could have gotten the idea that Craig was winning while Craig never properly demonstrated the validity of his own position and only used argument from consequences. Instead of presenting objective proof for objective moral Craig only presented subjective proof which is self defeating. If you are not familiar with the details of the topics, are not familiar with how logical fallacies work in debates or really want to be convinced it might seem like Bill Craig having good debates but if you critically look at the actual arguments, their validation and the conclusions that are justified from the arguments you will see that Craig does not score anything. Craig is a genius but the things he tries to prove require using arguments that no amount of philosophical trickery will ever cause to become successful. The arguments are the problem, a polished turd is still a turd even if you are really skilled at polishing turds like Craig is.

Answer 4

Religion is based on a belief system. And the belief system is established by your family, your friends, school and neighborhood, and all such in general.

So what you're asking is that folk should change their belief system (all their memories, their sentiments and up-bringing) because you or someone else says so!

That isn't going to happen - what the world needs instead is for folk to be left alone with their own beliefs so that everyone else can be happy with theirs.

.
.

Answer 5

I am afraid of the fundamentalists absolutely. I am afraid of their belief system. I am afraid of the things they are trying to do to this nation. I am terrified of them.

I see this as a war for the shape and direction for this nation.

We can continue as we have been, and were intended to be, as a secular nation that prioritizes trade.

Or we can become a values based theocracy that priortizes conformity to a belief set.

It's a war.

Answer 6

Its a good point. I am an athiest who doesn't attack peoples beliefs, but when I get attacked, I strike back, no turning the other cheek stuff for me

Answer 7

From the childish debates I see, people simply did not want to lose.

Answer 8

Religion is based on fear, I just hate when fundies tell innocents that they are going to hell if they don't believe what they believe. You get my point.

Answer 9

You can't enlighten closed minded people

Answer 10

you give them info and they give you a thumbs down and ignore it--you can't break through their hidebound skulls