As many atheists are aware, one of the most public things an atheist can do to assert his or her position as an atheist is to debate theists, predominantly Christians. This pastime is all to visible nowadays on Internet message boards, Facebook and other social networking sites, and online forums. These debates, if they can be called that, are usually demonstrations of an atheists new found reason, and a venting of anger at theists for a variety of crimes, both perceived and real. From arguments about the meaning of the word “theory” to who needs to provide evidence for their belief or lack thereof, these can cause a roller coaster rush of adrenaline and anger. The problem is that the outcome of these arguments is rarely worth the effort put in to them by both sides.
Let’s face facts: the likelihood that either side will sway the opinion of the other is distantly remote at best. To be fair, it is not because of a lack of skill at arguing on either side; it’s the simple fact that both sides of the argument are fighting on different battlefields. The atheist fights a battle of the mind, using logical points, facts, evidence, and reason; the theist is fighting a battle of the figurative heart, occasionally cloaking it in the guise of logic and facts, but ultimately making a series of emotional appeals.
Theism is understood to be generally reluctant to change direction based on logic, reason, and evidence; if proof is needed for this, one need only look back at the history of Medieval Europe. From the idea of the flat earth, to geocentricism, theism tends to reject evidence that contradicts dogma. There is no logical reason to do so (beyond maintaining control), and it is usually dealt with in such a way that it encourages the general believer to try and protect the common theistic world-view. The reaction is similar to that of any community under direct physical attack.
Atheism is usually the result of reason, intellect, self reflection, and examination. It delights in evidence and logic, and tends to eschew emotional reasoning and gut reactions. Many atheists are coming from religious backgrounds, and may atheists are angry at those around them for lying to them for so long, and at themselves for believing the lie. One tactic seen quite often from the theist camp is that atheists are just, “angry at God.” Atheists, in some cases, are angry, but not at an imagined being. They are angry at theism.
So, we find ourselves in debates. Both sides lay out their cases, and both end the discussion, with very, very few exceptions, not having changed at all. The atheist still rejects the premise of a supernatural god being, and the theist still rejects anything that contradicts their world-view.
Why, then, do we spend so much time, as atheists, engaged in a seemingly pointless series of arguments when we know, from experience, that little is accomplished? Matthew Dillahunty oof the Atheist Experience, an atheist call in show based in Austin, Texas, frequently talks about this. His viewpoint is that he knows he will not change the mind of the theist he is talking to, but he might change the mind of someone on the fence who is watching.
In Mr. Dillahunty’s case, it is a perfectly valid position. His debates are open and seen by many all around the world. He has an audience large enough that such debates are worthwhile and effective at what they are trying to accomplish.
While that may be true of online debates in some forums, in many, the forums are so hidden away that the likelihood that someone struggling with their faith would find them is low. Combine that with the mud-slinging contests some of these debates become, and one has a quiet reason for true agnosticism. If both sides are lost in their emotions, why would either side be a good option?
Then there is the simple fact that every minute one spends debating online is a minute one is not devoting to doing something positive. An atheist working at helping society is much more powerful than an atheist debating fine points online. Many theists already know this. That is why there are food pantries, homeless shelters, missions, feeding programs, and the like which are religiously based. It has been mentioned that religions tend to use the fact that people are down and out to push their message by making them sit through a sermon, effectively “holding their sandwich hostage”. I don’t encourage atheists to do something similar, but offering an alternative sans lecture would be a powerful thing to any community.
So, instead of debating online, help the local community. Instead of beating one’s head into the unyielding wall of dogma, show the positive face of non-belief.
We would like to believe that it is not about numbers, that we are not trying to convert the masses to atheism and that to do so makes us no better than theists. We insist that we are not out to rack up points saving souls (if there is such a thing) for atheism. That’s all well and good, but it takes numbers to make changes to society. Many people come to atheism in a vacuum, and find that there is no one around to talk with about these things. Join your local atheist group, CFI branch, or even start your own. Be there for free thinkers, and, together, we can move into a new age of reason where arguing with theists is passé.
Hello, my faithless readers, and even the faithful ones. I’ve been taking a only partially self imposed holiday from the Interwebs, so I do apologize for not updating more frequently. Many projects are on many burners, so to speak, but I intend to write more as time will allow.
