Ten Lessons Learned in Debating Theists

By:  Matt White

This will probably be the last “blog of ten” that I’ll be writing for a while.  Recently at our Owensboro Freethinkers Meeting, there was the expression of interest in opening up a dialogue with theists in our community.  Though we are not well-known in Owensboro (yet), there may come a time when we must intellectually defend ourselves against differing points of view.  The way to do that is through argumentation – the ability to soundly defend one’s views while critiquing the opponent's.  Our group is atheistic in element – most of us do not believe in a God – and while this isn’t an atheist group, this is a group where atheists are most welcome to join, fellowship, and enjoy the company of fellow non-believers.  As a community, though, we always encourage dialogue and we welcome all theists to prove us wrong or try to convert us.  It makes for great discussion, and as freethinkers, we’re pretty open to new ideas.  That is generally the group’s policy towards theism.

As for myself, I have debated theists for a few years now, and I have found that the rules of debate, while unspoken, tend to prove themselves time and time again.  In response to these rules, I have created a general set of guidelines that will help the unbeliever in tackling theistic topics of discussion.  I hope this assists our fellow members in possibly stretching their wings a bit if the opportunity to debate does arise.  You will have to forgive me for the broad strokes, and I understand I speak in generalities, but these are from my experiences.

1. Remember:  You won’t change minds.

Theists, in my opinion, usually debate with the intention of saving your soul or defending their faith.  The best way to do so is for you, their opponent, to be converted.  Theists are generally taught that their mission is to save souls, change hearts and minds, and to convince you they’re position is real.  However, most I have met lack an element that is essential in debate – the possibility of having their minds changed.  Theists normally do not go into a discussion with the notion that perhaps they’re wrong.  As an agnostic atheist, I do.  I always admit that I could be wrong.  I haven’t met many theists willing to grant the same concession.  As a matter of fact, be prepared to meet hostile theists who find your presence to be offensive just because you stand and say “I disagree”.  That’s a stigma that we have to deal with, and that prejudice works against our chances to change minds.

As such, I have never had a formalized debate where the intention was to change a theist’s mind because it’s almost unrealistic to think that it will happen then and there on the spot.  Perhaps you can plant a seed; perhaps the resources you offer, they may look into.  However, the vast majority of time, you will not change their minds, and you’ll leave the discussion in the same position as you came in.  It doesn’t mean the discussion shouldn’t happen, though, as we have a responsibility to discourse and entertain ideas.

2. Remove Emotion; Replace with Evidence.

There is a vast difference in the world view of the average theist and atheist.  Atheists are usually seen as cold, calculated, and critical (and to a degree, when thinking, one has to be in order to arrive at objective truth).  Theists view themselves as spreading a message of love and salvation.  I have been a theist, so I understand the importance of witnessing to the “lost”.  I also understand that they come from a position of faith.  Most non-believers do not.  Many discussions I have had with theists have been an ideological clash between emotion and evidence.  The atheist asks for evidence, and the theist responds with emotional pleas.  Many time, you’ll see it in the form of “argument…with an addendum attached asking you to open your heart to God in one way or another.”  Be prepared to have to shrug off emotional pleas; especially guilt.  Conviction is what normally leads to salvation, and if something they say can, to borrow their language, "stir your heart" to conviction…then they have done their job.  That’s an actual goal they reach for, so anticipate it manifesting by appeals to emotion.  Do not take attacks personally.  Call them out on it, but never digress to that level.

These attacks can range from being an agent of the devil, to being insensitive because you’re questioning their beliefs, that you're inferior or ignorant because you willfully choose not to believe in God, or it may be an appeal to take down your intellectual barriers and trust with your heart in God.  It happens all the time.  In response, demand evidence.  Everyone has their own bar for what passes as good evidence, but Carl Sagan once wrote in The Demon-Haunted World: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”  In the world of academics, where evidence is the key, the truth doesn’t lie on who can make the best emotional plea.  It relies solely on proof.  Theist’s claims are no exception.  If they do not provide evidence, point it out.

3. Know Your Argumentative Fallacies.

Many theists, I have met, usually don’t argue all too often (though I have met many notable exceptions).  I hate to sound like an ass when I say this, but it is mostly true:  most theists do not know how to argue.  There are rules in proving your thesis, and if you shirk those rules, more likely than not, you’ll be using argumentative fallacies.  The more fallacies you learn, the more you can offer correction when they occur, and hopefully your opponent can learn by having them pointed out.  Normally by doing this, you can then dismantle their argument and they’ll have to either concede or move on.  For an introduction, check out my last blog on argumentative fallacies.

4. Make them keep the burden of proof.

I am an agnostic atheist.  I have no evidence to believe in God.  I never say “there is no God”.   I don’t know that.  I don’t have to prove a negative, in the same way that I do not have to prove that there is no Loch Ness monster.  As such, he who makes the claim has to support it.  Unbelievers, be careful by saying “there is no God” because we don’t know that for sure (it’s almost intellectually dishonest to speak with that kind of certainty).  If the theist makes the claim that God “absolutely, 100% exists”, it is up to them to prove it, and you must play the role of skeptic.  If a theist says “well, you don’t have proof that God doesn’t exist”, remind them of the importance of the burden of proof.  Atheists have nothing to prove.  That's why we are atheists.

5. Define and Deconstruct.

This is a rule that often requires the patience of the atheist in debating, but much of what theists have to say can be deconstructed to show the inconsistency in their theses.  It’s best to set definitions if one can to set  parameters when discussing a term.  When one speaks of God, what do they mean?  Be prepared to quibble over meanings of words, because you might see equivocation as a fallacy pop up if you don’t, as well as confusing definitions and terms, or the shifting of goalposts.  Usually, I ask the theist two questions when I sense a debate coming:  “how much time do you have to commit to this?” and “how often do you debate?”  This takes time, but it can help you avoid hassles.  Vague terms need to be defined.

6. Avoid Shifting Topics.

Many theists have a very base understanding of atheistic topics.  It comes from them knowing about us through their spiritual leaders or biased commentators.  As such, the atheist will probably have to offer a lot of correction on misplaced assumptions.  One of the consequences of those assumptions is having theists shifting topics all the time, because they see them as linked (evolution and abiogenesis; existence of God and morality; etc.).  A recent debate I had was quite rife with the tactic, and it can exhaust an atheist who must reply to each accusation.  We were discussing, I believe, whether or not the Bible was authentic, but I was accused of not being able to interpret the Bible correctly because I didn’t have the Holy Spirit, and no moral compass…so we had to discuss morality – something completely different from whether or not the Bible is historically accurate.  I then had to point out to my opponent that what we were talking about had nothing to do with how I read and comprehended his book.  Be very watchful – once you hit a topic, recognize it, reinforce it, and stick with it until a point is conceded.

7. Recognize the Patterns; Anticipate the Generalities; Know Your Opponent.

This is kind of the big one.  The easiest way to prepare for a debate is to know what arguments to expect and to understand the theistic world view.  If I’m debating evolution, I anticipate hearing “it’s only a theory”; “it doesn’t explain the Big Bang”; “we’re too complex to have evolved”; “why are there still monkeys?”, etc. If I’m debating the Bible and its authenticity, I anticipate hearing arguments from Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel.  If we are discussing morality, I’m probably going to have to explain how I form my own morality and why it is in man’s best interest to be kind to his fellow man (and the evolutionary implications).  I usually have to retread the same ground over and over, but it’s mostly because the same arguments are presented to me over and over.  The best preparation is to read Christian apologetics…and then read critical responses to them.  It requires a lot of learning to have a response, but it is well worth it in the end if you have the opportunity to exercise what you have learned.  The best policy, as one of our members alluded to, is to treat debates with theists like a game of chess.  In chess, one removes all emotion, and the trick is to calculate the opponent’s next few moves as rationally and critically as possible.  Theists normally play the strategy of using the same arguments over and over, so it is relatively easy to anticipate them if you've been debating for a long time...though I’m always on the look-out for new ones.

8. Debate One-on-One.

This is something most folks don’t think about, but it is crucial if you’re debating in person.  This isn’t so much a rule as it is a guideline, but debating one-on-one is easier, and it places the atheist in the stronger position if he is the minority.  Ganging up is unfair to the minority and it drowns out their voice.  A group will usually win not because they made the better argument, but because they were louder and didn’t give the other person ample chance to make their case.  There is no reason a person should willingly place themselves in this situation.  When I’m with atheist friends and I have a theist who says something, and a debate is brewing, I try to make it a point to mention how unfair it is to gang up on someone, and ask that one person talk with the other as opposed to everyone interjecting something.  I haven’t had the same consideration from theists, but if I believe I’m going to have to debate three people, I ask that they pick someone to speak for them and for the other two people to hold off…or I address them one at a time.  This leads to the next rule…

9. Be Prepared to Explain In-depth.

Be prepared to explain in-depth what you have to say.  How this connects with the last guideline concerns exhaustion.  If you are debating three people who throw three different accusations at you, you have to spend ample time addressing each one of those if the interest is to correct the theist.  That’s three times the work.  I normally do one-on-one debates or discussions simply because I want to address all the points my opponent makes.  Much of the time, assumptions are thrown at us where we have to correct them, and we must explain our rational.  That can take up a lot of time and space, but it comes with the territory.

10. Practice, Practice, Practice.

The best way to learn how to debate is through experience.  I used to find random message boards and forums where nobody would know me, walk in, and debate.  Sometimes I won; sometimes I was handed my own brain on an argumentative silver platter.  But I learned from it.  That’s the essential ingredient in debating.  Minds may not be changed, but skills should be improved.  Don’t be afraid to place yourself out there and, more importantly, ask for help or research what you’re going to be discussing.  Besides, you may find you have a knack for debate when you put your mind to it.

Conclusion

Hopefully these ten recommendations will give the new debater a set of general guidelines of what to expect when debating a theist.  Most of my experiences have been debating theists, so these are just what I’ve noticed occur in the natural course of discussion.  Each side in the theistic discussion – theist and non – have their own set ways of conducting the debate, but gaining an understanding of how each operates is essential in conducting good, constructive dialogue between opposing viewpoints.

Argumentative Fallacies: A List of Logical Low-blows

By: Matt White

As one who identifies with freethinking values, I tend to support the ideas and rights that promote free speech and free thought -- that’s the understood emphasis of the philosophy and our group.  I also, as a citizen of one of the best countries in the world, enjoy and promote the free exercise of those rights and an open discussion of those ideas.  Consequently, we live in a world of competitive ideology; an intellectual gauntlet exists where notions and concepts must enter into an open forum, with competing ideas and their proponents hashing it out to obtain the one overall arching, intellectual holy grail that all seekers hope to find:  the truth.

Like any moderated fight or competition, there are certain rules one must abide by in order to gain a victory, or in our case, to promote one’s ideas as the truth.  While there are numerous rules in stylized debate -- a set of standards which should be enforced at all times -- there is one that particularly discourages logical low-blows.  For an idea to be true, it must be logically consistent through all its parts, cohesive, coherent, and above all they must make practical sense.  Evidence must be the final authority that proves or disproves a claim.  Deviations from evidence that buttresses an argument, we call “logical fallacies” -- non-evidential attempts at proving a point.  Like a magician performing a trick, logical fallacies are slight-of-the-hand methods used to bolster an illusion of fact.

As an arm chair academic, I would like to call you, the reader’s, attention to what I see as the ten most prevalent logical fallacies that I have come across.  My hope is, while reading these, you may see practical applications to using these in real life:

10.  Circular Reasoning

This is the worst of the best and I find it mostly in debates focusing on matters of religion.  I tend to debate religion, history, and ethics, and circular reasoning is best described as two dependent premises enforcing each other, therefore a conclusion is reached on those two premises.  Theists in particular use this one:  "I believe my holy book is true because it says it is true; therefore my holy book is true."  Outside evidence must validate an argument.  How do we know your holy book is true?  Is there any corroborating evidence to establish a firm foundation for your book?  Can its premises be validated by outside sources?  This has been the bane of many debates I’ve had, especially with Theists.  Remember:  the more varied evidence to support your claim, the better.

 9.  Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem is a fallacy that even the most rudimentary debater usually knows, but it pops up enough to be on my list.  Ad Hominem is simply attacking the debater as opposed to criticizing the idea.  An example:  premise:  “My dog is a good dog”; response:  “prove it.”; reply:  “you’re a horrible person for thinking my dog can’t be a good dog.”  Attacking someone’s credibility, whether intellectual, academic, social, or moral, does nothing to prove or disprove the merits of an idea.  The idea that my dog is still a good dog still stands ready to be debated regardless of the social standing of the two debaters.  Subsequently…my dog is a Treeing Walker Coon Hound named Zelda…and she is a good dog.

8.  Confusion of Correlation and Causation

This is one that many folks aren’t aware of, and I myself didn’t learn about it until an Introduction to Psychology course at university.  To define this fallacy, we must first define “causation” and “correlation“.  Causation:  “I dropped the glass; the glass broke; therefore I broke the glass”.  (I directly caused the glass to break by my actions).  Correlation:  “I am upset; there‘s a full moon out tonight; therefore the full moon is the source of my anger” (studies show the moon has no direct influence on behavior, hence it was entirely coincidental that the moon was out).  The difference lies in linking two events.  If one event directly causes another, it is grounds for causation; if two events happen to coincide or are related, but one did not directly cause the other, it is normally correlation.  Confusion of the two can lead to premises being established based on coincidence or bad timing.

7.  Argument from Authority

This is a fallacy committed by those, I’ve seen, who promote extremely bad premises.  Essentially, this fallacy relies on the words of experts to validate the truthfulness of a claim, and it‘s a red flag to me that basically screams:  “I have no real evidence…so I am going to use quotes instead!”  I have run across these in a lot of Creationist/Evolution debates -- Creationists tend to quote-mine from “experts” (real or imagined) and will state “Aha!  Because X says that…(statement agreeing with Creationist agenda)…therefore X is true!”  No, no -- that’s an opinion and unless that view had evidence within, you have just quoted a person agreeing with you.  If person A states that the grass is rainbow-colored, and person A happens to be a biologist, is person A’s claim true based on their expertise?  Absolutely not.  Arguments from authority are weak ways to use the words of experts in place of actual evidence.

6.  Argumentum ad Populum/Bandwagon Fallacy

I have seen this fallacy all over the place.  The bandwagon fallacy is simply a “strength in numbers” ploy.  I’ll give you two examples -- one that I have actually heard before and one that I’ve never heard before…and kind of hope I don‘t.  Compare and contrast their points:  “Most people in the United States are white; therefore whites are the supreme race and should run the country” (I’ve heard this one); “Most people in the United States drink alcohol, therefore alcohol is a great thing!” (Never heard this one).  Appealing to numbers or the popularity of an action or way of thought has no bearing on the actual truthfulness of the thought.  In this country, you will hear “well, most people support…“.  It’s a great political ploy because there’s a popular idea in this country that “majority rules”.  This is somewhat true in practicality, but the majority of people can be mistaken.  Remember:  after the removal of dissidents, the vast majority of Germans supported Nazi Germany…

5.  Special Pleading

This is a tricky little fallacy.  Essentially, it means, in the course of discussion, one side tries to buy special exemptions for their premise that every other premise is subject to.  A hypothetical example:  premise:  “I have a political position and it is amazing.”; reply:  “prove your political position.”;  response:  “Well, my political position is unlike all the rest…”  Usually in the realm of politics and religion, special pleading abounds because each adherent to a certain position seeks to place its position on a pedestal and the easiest way to do that is to find ways that it doesn’t fit all the rules or exempt it from the usual criticisms.  To bring my Coon Hound back into the fray -- “my pet is a cat because, aside from the fact that she has four legs with doggy paws, a dog-like tail, floppy Coon Hound ears, is of the canine family, has mannerisms like a dog, has fur like many dogs do, has relatively the same cognitive abilities a dog has, has the teeth of a dog, the general looks of a dog, and barks like a dog…aside from all of that, she is a cat”  No, she’s a dog and I cannot build a claim based on exemptions that all other people making the same claim would be subject to.  My dog is just like every other dog, no matter how much I want her to be a cat. (And I don’t).

4.  Confirmation Bias/Observational Selection

This fallacy is one that I see all over the bloody place and it speaks volumes about how we function as human beings.  I lumped these two together because they’re essentially the same thing in practical applications.  Confirmation Bias/Observational Selection (or CB and OS) are obvious when one plays with statistics.  Observational selection is taking evidence that supports one’s claims while ignoring/suppressing the evidence that disproves it.  Confirmation bias, to use a sound-bite, is “counting the hits and ignoring the misses.”  I have, in my apartment, a corner-edge that’s really a beast to walk around in the middle of the night.  I sometimes stub my toe on it.  I have caught myself saying “(insert appropriate curse)!  I stub my foot on this (curse) every (curse) time!” (My language can be colorful).  That is not true -- I walk past that edge all the time during the dawn, day, and dusk hours, and I stub my toe on it probably somewhere near 1:100 of the times I walk by.  Stating a premise based on a few affirmations in the face of numerous “misses” usually affirms the opposite of the premise.

3.  False Dichotomy

Giving limited options when there are clearly more.  I think of parents doing this all the time, and it‘s usually done to give a choice, but to limit that choice to preferred courses of actions that reinforce our premises.  Premise:  “broccoli is good for you…and you will either eat your broccoli or go to your room as punishment!”  Clearly, if little Johnny could reason his way out of the situation, he has more options than eating the broccoli or going to his room.  He could feed the broccoli to the dog, negotiate a middle ground, trade broccoli in for another vegetable, turn the table over, run outside for his parents to catch him, ruin the broccoli to where it can’t be eaten -- there are clearly more choices than what is presented.  By the way, little Johnny should probably eat the broccoli…

2.  Shifting the Burden of Proof

There’s one specific rule in argumentation that so many folks forget:  “he who makes the claim must prove the claim.”  Freethinkers are usually skeptics, especially in matters of the supernatural.  There’s no impetus on us to believe something until there is adequate evidence for it.  I personally have no reason to believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, ESP, paranormal activities, spirits, angels, demons, or even gods until the evidence is presented.  He who makes the claim, again, must prove it.  Usually this falls, in my experience, in trying to prove something’s existence (usually God or another supernatural claim).  If someone says “X is real”, I have the right to be skeptical and say “I see no evidence X is real; prove it is real.”  Shifting the burden of proof would be my esteemed opponent saying “well, prove X is not real/you can’t prove X isn’t real, therefore it is real.”  The absence of evidence, as it is said, may not be the evidence of absence, but evidence drives rational discourse.  It is the absolute responsibility of the person making the claim to prove it; there’s no obligation for someone to believe it otherwise.

1.  Straw Man

In thinking on this list, I was hesitant to put this as number one, but my experience has honestly taught me that this is the top fallacy I have seen in my experience…as frustrating as it is because it‘s such an easy fallacy to avoid committing.  The Straw Man fallacy is the act of building a perceived position of one’s opponent, and then attacking it when that artificial position does not truly represent the opponent.  I am an Agnostic Atheist and I hear arguments all the time misrepresenting the position of the unbeliever.  So many times, I have to correct people by saying “well, that’s not actually what we believe…”.  In politics, I see the continual mud-slinging between two different parties because of perception.  On the fringes, Democrats demonize Republicans as one thing; Republicans vilify Democrats as another.  I’ve never heard a Democrat or Republican admit to these accusations because they’re the other side’s perceptions.

So many Straw Men are built because of a general lack of understanding of another stance.  I’ve seen it in the Evolution/Creationist debates; Atheist/Theist discussions; Democrat/Republican arguments; Socially Liberal/Socially Conservative Arguments.  Insert any two opposing sides, and unless they are exceptionally well-studied on the opponent’s view points, and are prone to not misrepresent the other side’s view, you will see more straw men than all the corn fields of the South could have to offer.  The best remedies to avoiding this fallacy are to simply let the other side represent himself and try to garner an honest understanding of your opponent’s position.

Conclusion

One may ask “what’s the point?”.  Here’s the clincher:  the ability to recognize logical fallacies gives one an intellectual advantage and, as I love listening to folks talk, it‘s just plain fun to be able to pull apart someone‘s logic by recognizing where they have failed.  It betters you as an individual to know how to make a case that stands on its own merits instead of fallacious reasoning.  I would urge you to apply these to everything you hear and say, whether it be watching television advertisements, listening to a co-worker putting forward a proposal, or even yourself engaging in a discussion where you must prove your point.  The ideological arena we live in is one where the armed debater has the strong advantage, but its an advantage earned by anyone who takes the time to understand the tricks of the logical trade.

Honorable Mentions:
Argumentum ad ignorantium/Argument from Incredulity:  An argument wherein one party does not understand how a proposition can be true, hence they presume it cannot be true.
Moving the goalposts:  A situation where, once evidence is presented to sufficiently prove/disprove claim, even greater proof is therefore demanded, continually raising the bar or standard of evidence.
Argumentum ad baculum: An argument based on an appeal to fear or a threat.
Non Sequitur: Latin for "It does not follow." An inference or conclusion that does not follow from established premises or evidence.
Begging the Question (or assuming the answer).  Premise where one assumes the premise and conclusion are both true in order to prove the point.
Red Herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.

For a very comprehensive list of fallacies:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies