Debating Fundies: Is There A Point Of Diminishing Return?

[chaoschristian]

I'm an odd bird. I'm a Christian who accepts evolutionary theory and thinks that Christians should stay out of politics.

I posted articles for the Dover school board case on a Christian BBS I belong to, because I want to share with other Christians why I think that the ruling is a very good thing to have happen.

OK, I can deal with the ad hominem attacks on my person (to a limit) that came after I posted my messages.

But, what is really frustrating me is the shear stupidity of the follow-up debates.

I've very carefully responded to people who disagree with my position, point for point, with precision, reason and civility. When they make claims, I ask them to provide a reasonable argument to support their claims. And this is when the dancing starts. I get evasions. I get red herrings. I get nit-picking. I get escalating demands for definitions and evidence. I get anything but direct responses to any question or point I raise.

An example: One guy, who claims to have advanced degrees in engineering and physics claimed that he could prove that evolution violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I responded with an "OK, show me your proof." His response? "Well you need to do that research yourself."

Here is the point to my rant: there comes a time when you realize that no matter what you say, no matter how good your logic, no matter your evidence, the person on the other side of the monitor is simply not going to change their position. There comes a point when it is simply not worth the time and energy needed to type out yet one more response, to sift through tons of crap in order to make a point-by-point counter, or to work your way around yet another ad hominem attack so that you can keep to the point and try to keep the thread on topic.

I ask, what is the best exit strategy in a situation like this that does not abandon the field or concede the argument?

And telling the other party to fuck off (no matter how much I would really like to) is simply not an option.


Oh, and just for fun, here are the top 5 reasons provided by my fellow Christians on why they don't need to respond to me in a rational manner, and (I guess) why they feel free to engage in ad hominem attacks even though it is strictly against board rules and, oh yeah, fucking scripture:

5. You don't use the KJV Bible
4. You don't read the Bible literally word for word
3. You're a member of the ACLU (true) and are therefore a liberal Democrat (not true) and you are evil
2. You did not fill out your Members Bio completely - what are you hiding? (I am not making this up!)
1. Your screen name is chaoschristian. Chaos means disorder. You are the devil! (I am really NOT making this up.)

[Darth Wong]

When I can tell that a Christian is not even trying to examine the logic of the situation, I often give up trying to debate him on a reasonable level and just start making fun of him or flaming him for being an idiot.

Of course, it's frustrating when you talk to an idiot in a venue where flaming isn't allowed. Just today, I got involved in an argument with some idiot whose answer to an argument about church/state separation was "there is no church/state separation in the Bible."

[chaoschristian]

That's exactly my situation. I can't flame - ooh how I want to, but I can't.

Yet when I get response similar to one in your example, in my case it was along the lines of "it doesn't matter that the defendents lied, because the Judge has an anti-Christian agenda!"

So, what did you do in your case? Just walk away from the exchange? Or is there someway to strategically disengage in order to save your sanity, and yet let the other person know that you are not conceding?

[chaoschristian]

You (I say to no one in particular) might be wondering why I even bother.

I bother because I think that Christianity in the US has been hijacked by a mass of idiotic-narcissistic-despotic bastards who want nothing less than to dominate the nation through political brute force.

I am honestly frightened by the tenacity and determination exhibited by this crowd and the degree to which an element of fatalism has injected itself into their mindset.

I want to turn as many people away from this POV as I can, because I want my son and daughter to inherit a nation that's not been totally fucked by a bunch of wack-jobs.

[wolveraptor]

The best way to do that is not to argue against fundamentalists: they're lost causes. It's the moderate majority, swayed by the religious conviction of the fanatical right, that needs convincing.

[Lagmonster]

There's a limit to the effectiveness of debating with fundies simply because there's only so much that any one person's delusions and mental conditioning will allow to slip through. The best you can hope for is to convert the ones who are already smart enough to come to the realization that your arguments are more plausible than theirs, to stop the ones caught in the middle from using the really STUPID arguments, and to stop the hopeless ones from arguing with you at all...which is a victory and a blessing in and of itself.

[Wyrm]

The fundie is definitely a lost cause, and in a forum where personal insults are not allowed, the best you can hope for is to rip away their facade of credibility by exposing their nonsense for what it is. Once you've done that, you can withdrawl with your pride intact.

For example, your so-called engineer/physics major should be responded to with something along the lines of:

SCE: "Well you need to do that research yourself."
You: "What? You're the one with the proof and I have to come up with the research?! Would you accept my claim of having seen a dancing pink elephant on the street without some solid evidence? I thought not!"

When the proof is finally produced, demolish it by stating that the 2nd law doesn't care about complexity or order, but about overall dispersal of energy. Basically, expose the arguement for the strawman it is. You can have as much local ordering as you wish, as long as the energy of the system is dispersed adequately. Then point out the sun, which is dispersing energy like a sonuvabitch.

Basically, the essense here is calling bullshit without actually saying "bullshit". You need to establish that the fundie's reasoning and/or credibility is poor without outright calling him stupid or a liar.

At minimum, the lasting impression you want to leave is that science is self-correcting; that the rewards for exposing a given concept as wrong are rewarded, not penalized. Most of the anti-evolution arguments that a creationist will come up with have been known for decades if not centuries, so if they had any merit, some scientist would've already used it as a basis to make his own name in science. That this hasn't happened means that the arguments have been successfully countered by a bunch of people a lot more familiar with the subject matter than them.

[Jew]

I ask, what is the best exit strategy in a situation like this that does not abandon the field or concede the argument?

If you go into a conversation or discussion with the intent of winning the argument, there is no real exit strategy. You need to re-evaluate your purpose and reason for participating.

My advice is this: Don't discuss things with the goal of winning a debate. That's it. When you aren't trying to win, you can focus on what is most important: effectively communicating your beliefs. Don't look at the conversation as a debate that you have to win, look at it as a chance to state your ideas and listen to their ideas in return. If you've made your case and they respond with idiocy, then your job is done. There is no need to keep responding to them to try to wring a "concession" out of them. You yourself need not concede, you simply stop participating in that discussion.

Think about it this way: you'll never convince the guy you're debating with that he is wrong. What you're hoping for is that your succinct and well-thought-out posts will convince some anonymous lurker that you're right and the other guy is wrong. Incidentally, that's why it's important never to stoop to name-calling and rampant swearing: that kind of language turns many people off and is counterproductive to your aims.

[Coalition]

The best way to do that is not to argue against fundamentalists: they're lost causes. It's the moderate majority, swayed by the religious conviction of the fanatical right, that needs convincing.

This, to me, is the key. If you can make the fundie look like a moron, so their own friends look at them funny, that is the key victory.

However, I would not immediately claim victory, saying that I don't have all the answers, but invite them to learn all they can themselves. Hopefully the more they read, something will sink in.

Slavery is often a good one. Ask the fundie if the bible is completely true, then show how slavery is tolererated in the bible. Ask the fundie if they believe slavery to be a good thing. Or attitudes towards women from their perspective, and from the bible.

[Darth Wong]

Think about it this way: you'll never convince the guy you're debating with that he is wrong. What you're hoping for is that your succinct and well-thought-out posts will convince some anonymous lurker that you're right and the other guy is wrong. Incidentally, that's why it's important never to stoop to name-calling and rampant swearing: that kind of language turns many people off and is counterproductive to your aims.

In the same vein, if you're debating in one of those Emily Post forums, make sure your spelling and grammar are impeccable. The kind of "style over substance" moron who instantly gravitates to the most polite poster will also be affected by a subjective impression of scholarly conduct, and that's destroyed if you type the word "incredabul". Of course, that's assuming you are heavily concerned with swaying the "style over substance" morons, who unfortunately make up the bulk of people online as they do in real-life.

[Zero]

I was recently banned from a christian forum. It was either the points that they couldn't beat, or my claim that my penis was omnipotent, but I was still pissed, because I had four goddamned posts, and no warning.

Or maybe it was the talk about how asking only for answers to a question which SUPPORT the notion of a global flood was dishonest, as you're essentially asking for a false portrayal of reality.

[Darth Wong]

I was recently banned from a christian forum. It was either the points that they couldn't beat, or my claim that my penis was omnipotent, but I was still pissed, because I had four goddamned posts, and no warning.

Or maybe it was the talk about how asking only for answers to a question which SUPPORT the notion of a global flood was dishonest, as you're essentially asking for a false portrayal of reality.

As far as I can tell, most Christian forums consider any questioning of their core beliefs to be trolling, no matter how logical and polite it is. Many of them even state this in their rules.

[Zero]

I was recently banned from a christian forum. It was either the points that they couldn't beat, or my claim that my penis was omnipotent, but I was still pissed, because I had four goddamned posts, and no warning.

Or maybe it was the talk about how asking only for answers to a question which SUPPORT the notion of a global flood was dishonest, as you're essentially asking for a false portrayal of reality.

As far as I can tell, most Christian forums consider any questioning of their core beliefs to be trolling, no matter how logical and polite it is. Many of them even state this in their rules.

I've been to one where this wasn't so, but that was because the site owner had become an atheist after making the site. Or at least an agnostic. He eventually shut it down, though.

[Darth Wong]

As far as I can tell, most Christian forums consider any questioning of their core beliefs to be trolling, no matter how logical and polite it is. Many of them even state this in their rules.

I've been to one where this wasn't so, but that was because the site owner had become an atheist after making the site. Or at least an agnostic. He eventually shut it down, though.

When you think about it, the prevalence of such rules on Christian forums does tell you a lot about the core problem of the religion; its inherent desire to eliminate anything from their environment that might threaten their beliefs. That's why they're always pushing for censorship of sexual movies and games but not violent movies and games (the Bible says that sexual lust is a sin, but it says nothing about the desire to inflict violence). That's why they're always pushing to weaken or marginalize the teaching of evolution theory in science class. That's why they're always complaining about the loss of "modesty" and the prevalence of girls wearing revealing clothes in public. They're afraid that these things will tempt them, and they lack confidence in their own strength against temptation so they want to remove these temptations from the world.

That's also why, if you go to any "neutral" forum and try to argue religion, the resident Christians will periodically lobby the forum admins to have you silenced and/or any topics critical of religion removed, locked, or banned. That's why their first instinctive reaction when you criticize their religion is "how dare you", and why half the Christian responses in a typical debate about religion will focus on what's wrong with you for asking these questions, as opposed to providing answers to the questions themselves. They just can't deal with it. They're brought up believing that it's immoral to ask questions. One does not test God, etc. They might as well hand out earplugs at church so the believers can get practice blocking out reality.

[chaoschristian]

I've been knocking my head against a wall and for no real purpose. I cleaned up my threads, and left those forums where any further effort was pointless.

Darth Wong wrote:

if you go to any "neutral" forum and try to argue religion, the resident Christians will periodically lobby the forum admins to have you silenced and/or any topics critical of religion removed, locked, or banned. That's why their first instinctive reaction when you criticize their religion is "how dare you", and why half the Christian responses in a typical debate about religion will focus on what's wrong with you for asking these questions, as opposed to providing answers to the questions themselves

And this behavior is not reserved for use against non-Christians alone. Questioning someone's faith becuase you don't read the Bible exactly as they do (or even read the same translation) or don't agree with their point is usually the first order of business. Its one of the many uses of what I've come to call "The Bible-Hammer."

To me, if you can't handle questions regarding your beliefs, then you need to question your faith and what it is built upon. I know, this may make no sense to the non-Christian or non-regilious, but I welcome questions. I don't fear them.

Ahh, and maybe that is the heart of it, perhaps the heart of the fundie is filled with nothing but fear, and that is why they lash out so violently.

I'dont know, but I do know better than to fight a losing battle. Thanks everyone for helping me out on this one.

[nasor]

I've very carefully responded to people who disagree with my position, point for point, with precision, reason and civility. When they make claims, I ask them to provide a reasonable argument to support their claims. And this is when the dancing starts. I get evasions. I get red herrings. I get nit-picking. I get escalating demands for definitions and evidence. I get anything but direct responses to any question or point I raise.

I think it’s important to note that trying to use reasoned argument to change the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians is usually pointless because they didn’t arrive at their beliefs using reason. You will virtually never make a fundamentalist say “Oh, clearly I made an error in reasoning there. Thanks for pointing it out! You’ve given me something to think about…” because there wasn’t any sort of rational analysis that went into the formation of their beliefs in the first place. You can’t use a logical argument to convince a fundamentalist that he’s wrong any more than you could use an emotional argument to convince a mathematician that an equation is wrong.

This is also why you will virtually never get a coherent answer if you try to pin a Christian down on why they believe what they believe. It always eventually comes down to “you have to have faith”.