How do you deal with atheist abuse?

[Charlemagne_III]

Philosophy involving pure metaphysics, like the ontological arguments are hardly convincing IMO.

Aquinas agrees with you about the ontological argument.

More onto than logical.

 

[Vonsalza]

Recently I found myself in an uncomfortable setting (long story). Before long, a theological discussion broke out, and I tried my hardest to remain out of it, but my opinion was offered. Immediately I was confronted by a flurry of atheists and their arguments. Screaming about logic, reason, science, etc.

Normally I am very cool/level headed, but during this moment I got heated by the name calling and it eventually got to a point where I felt I was just ganged up on.

How are we to deal with them? Reason with them? Abandon them? Smack them? What?

In the face of close-minded religious zeal, there’s nothing you can do.

You could ask them if they’ve any proof there isn’t a God, as their claim clearly requires.
But zealots of all stripes generally ignore rational objections that undermine their zealotry.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Before long, a theological discussion broke out, and I tried my hardest to remain out of it…

Why did you try hard to stay out of a discussion about God with unbelievers?
Apologetics isn’t about saying you’re sorry for your beliefs.

…Immediately I was confronted by a flurry of atheists and their arguments. Screaming about logic, reason, science, etc.

Really?
I find it very hard to believe that a gang of atheists would dog-pile on a lone Christian and start ‘screaming’ about science and logical fallacies and the definition of evidence…

…Normally I am very cool/level headed, but during this moment I got heated by the name calling

Name calling? No way.
You’re making this up aren’t you.

…it eventually got to a point where I felt I was just ganged up on.

That’s not a fair fight. Just one Christian versus half a dozen atheists?
I’m dissaponted in you PT.
Where’s your sportsmanship?
You should have given them time to call for a few dozen more atheists and THEN started the debate.

…How are we to deal with them? Reason with them? Abandon them? Smack them? What?

If they want to ‘crash test’ their own atheist beliefs, you should remember that iron sharpens iron. And always be prepared to give answers and reasons.

Otherwise, if they aren’t interested in what you have to share…you know what to do.

 

[punisherthunder]

I’d try to reason with them. Being a non-believer myself I can say that citing biblical passages or theology does not work to convince me. I’ve read and studied the Bible, and I used to practice it as a Christian. I don’t close the door to the idea that a God can supernaturally intervene to change my mind. However, I believe that philosophy is the best place to start to convincing a non-believer, and I mean a philosophy or arguments that deal with more concrete real-world matters, like logic and philosophy of science, epistemology, origin of the Universe, nature of consciousness, etc. For instance, if you can give me an argument that involves refuting or showing the limitations of metaphysical and methodological naturalism and offer an epistemology to replace or supplement it, then I think you can make some headway. Philosophy involving pure metaphysics, like the ontological arguments are hardly convincing IMO.

I wasn’t trying to convince them at all. I firmly, politely told them that I was a believer and I’m Catholic. That was quite possibly the worst thing to do. Despite them not believing, I assure you what they were saying was as profane as it gets.

 

[Tyrel]

Recently I found myself in an uncomfortable setting (long story). Before long, a theological discussion broke out, and I tried my hardest to remain out of it, but my opinion was offered. Immediately I was confronted by a flurry of atheists and their arguments. Screaming about logic, reason, science, etc.

Normally I am very cool/level headed, but during this moment I got heated by the name calling and it eventually got to a point where I felt I was just ganged up on.

How are we to deal with them? Reason with them? Abandon them? Smack them? What?

This must be a ‘personal-temperament’ thing, but I find myself getting reciprocally snarky in a playful way when confronting atheists like this. Most atheists, like most theists, have a very poor grasp on substantive arguments, so nearly any time at all spent seriously reading and studying arguments about theism/atheism will give you an advantage. I think it also helps to pull the rug from under their feet. If they are naturalists who believe that our cognitive faculties have been shaped by evolution, then ask them why they aren’t pragmatists with respect to truth (and, if they are, why they wouldn’t accept that Christianity is one of the best models we have for organizing our world). If they appeal to science, ask them if they agree with many notable atheistic scientists and philosophers of science who embrace some version of scientific anti-realism (from Constructive Empiricism to structural realism, and even to Stephen Hawking’s so-called “model-dependent realism”). If they bring up logic, ask them whether there are modal truths which are not merely model-dependently true, but true simpliciter (and, if so, how there could be such truths in the absence of a necessary mind). Obviously you can only get away with asking these questions if you’re sufficiently philosophically equipped, but these days if you’re a Christian in the first world and you aren’t sufficiently philosophically equipped for this kind of engagement, you aren’t trying hard enough.

In sum, my advice is to engage them playfully. Be unafraid of being as belligerent as they are willing to be, while retaining an obvious respect for them - in my experience, the atheists worth talking to who voice their opinions forcefully have nothing but respect for those who voice their own opinions in the same way. Natural born warriors admire somebody willing to throw a good punch. Natural born debaters admire anyone who pulls no punches in a debate.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Most atheists, like most theists, have a very poor grasp on substantive arguments…

I know, right?

…mostly unsupported sweeping generalizations.

 

[Bradski]

‘Huh, so you’re a ‘Christian’ are you? Like I suppose you believe in Jesus and the devil and stuff. What a crock’.

‘Really? Well maybe you can expound on the fact that there are modal truths which are not merely model-dependently true, but true simpliciter. And if you accept that premise, how do you explain that there could be such truths in the absence of a necessary mind?’

‘Well duh. You can only get away with asking these questions in a playfully engaging manner if you’re sufficiently philosophically equipped, but these days if you’re a Christian in the first world and you aren’t sufficiently philosophically equipped for this kind of engagement, you aren’t trying hard enough.’

‘Hey I’m trying, Ringo. I’m trying real hard.’

 

[Tyrel]

I know, right?

…mostly unsupported sweeping generalizations.

Do you think my generalization was either unfair or incorrect? I mean, presumably you must, unless I’m just failing to see the relevance of generalizations to things like Schellenberg’s argument from divine hiddenness or Pruss’ Leibnizian cosmological argument (et cetera).

 

[Tyrel]

‘Huh, so you’re a ‘Christian’ are you? Like I suppose you believe in Jesus and the devil and stuff. What a crock’.

‘Really? Well maybe you can expound on the fact that there are modal truths which are not merely model-dependently true, but true simpliciter. And if you accept that premise, how do you explain that there could be such truths in the absence of a necessary mind?’

‘Well duh. You can only get away with asking these questions in a playfully engaging manner if you’re sufficiently philosophically equipped, but these days if you’re a Christian in the first world and you aren’t sufficiently philosophically equipped for this kind of engagement, you aren’t trying hard enough.’

‘Hey I’m trying, Ringo. I’m trying real hard.’

This is cute. I might as well take the bait.

First, if one is an atheist in the traditional and still (arguably) standard sense, then one believes that the proposition “God exists” is false. ‘God’ here refers to the being of generic theism. Notice that theism doesn’t entail Christianity, nor does it even entail religion (there are atheistic religions, like Buddhism, and secular theists, like the deists). When talking about whether there are laws of logic which are necessarily true not just by fiat, but are true simpliciter, it helps, as it turns out, to have the kind of metaphysical equipment able to account for their truth. A necessary mind is one philosophical option. Platonism is another. Some kind of nominalism or anti-realism about modal facts is another. In fact, it is this last option which most intelligent atheists seem to prefer (this partially explains people like W.V.O. Quine, especially in his famous “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”). So there really is a legitimate case to be made here that it is philosophically easier to account for the objectivity of at least some necessary facts/truths if you’re a theist than if you’re an atheist. If we’re having a serious discussion, I don’t see any reason not to mention that (and things like it).

If the atheist is serious about her atheism, I see no reason not to focus the discussion on that very point from the start.

 

[minkymurph]

This must be a ‘personal-temperament’ thing, but I find myself getting reciprocally snarky in a playful way when confronting atheists like this. Most atheists, like most theists, have a very poor grasp on substantive arguments, so nearly any time at all spent seriously reading and studying arguments about theism/atheism will give you an advantage. I think it also helps to pull the rug from under their feet. If they are naturalists who believe that our cognitive faculties have been shaped by evolution, then ask them why they aren’t pragmatists with respect to truth (and, if they are, why they wouldn’t accept that Christianity is one of the best models we have for organizing our world). If they appeal to science, ask them if they agree with many notable atheistic scientists and philosophers of science who embrace some version of scientific anti-realism (from Constructive Empiricism to structural realism, and even to Stephen Hawking’s so-called “model-dependent realism”). If they bring up logic, ask them whether there are modal truths which are not merely model-dependently true, but true simpliciter (and, if so, how there could be such truths in the absence of a necessary mind). Obviously you can only get away with asking these questions if you’re sufficiently philosophically equipped, but these days if you’re a Christian in the first world and you aren’t sufficiently philosophically equipped for this kind of engagement, you aren’t trying hard enough.

With respect Tyrel I can’t agree with this approach.

There are atheists and theists who have a good grasp of substantive arguments, and those that do not. There are atheists who think they know more than do, and there are theists who think they know more than they do.

The ‘I can pull the rug out from under your feet as know more than you know’ can also come across as arrogant and cause rancor rather than persuade. Most atheist’s I know respect Christians (same principle applicable to other religions) who don’t try to present clever arguments, but quietly get on with being a Christian in their everyday lives. I have heard many an atheist say, ‘I like ‘Bob’ as he doesn’t go around shoving his religion down peoples throats, and he actually tries to be a Christian.’ As Mother Theresa said. ‘Preach the Gospel and if necessary use words.’

In sum, my advice is to engage them playfully. Be unafraid of being as belligerent as they are willing to be, while retaining an obvious respect for them - in my experience, the atheists worth talking to who voice their opinions forcefully have nothing but respect for those who voice their own opinions in the same way. Natural born warriors admire somebody willing to throw a good punch. Natural born debaters admire anyone who pulls no punches in a debate.

I think this assertion is idealistic. I think it is idealistic as it only applies to natural born debaters who engage in debate simply because they enjoy the exchange. The natural born debater can engage in playful debate as the natural born debater doesn’t really care what is being debated, just so long as something is and the debate has no objective in that no one is seeking to persuade anyone of anything, they just enjoy the exchange. Not every atheist is a natural born debater - and of course not every theist is not a natural born debater), though your post does not imply they are.

Being philosophically equipped will not enable you to get away with anything if you are dealing with someone who is unreasonable. The reasonable may respect the fact you are informed and have have the capacity to articulate your arguments - the unreasonable will not as they are not interested in your arguments. They are only interested in what they think and will automatically reject any argument you present irrespective of how sound they are if not belittle and misinterpret them, and walk away from the debate believing they ‘won’ irrespective of how it went. There was a good reason why Jesus told his followers not to cast their pearls before swine.

 

[Bradski]

I do enjoy the satisfying sound of a nail’s head being hit crisply.

 

[Tyrel]

With respect Tyrel I can’t agree with this approach.

The ‘I can pull the rug out from under your feet as know more than you know’ can also come across as arrogant and cause rancor rather than persuade. Most atheist’s I know respect Christians (same principle applicable to other religions) who don’t try to present clever arguments, but quietly get on with being a Christian in their everyday lives. I have heard many an atheist say, ‘I like ‘Bob’ as he doesn’t go around shoving his religion down peoples throats, and he actually tries to be a Christian.’ As Mother Theresa said. ‘Preach the Gospel and if necessary use words.’

If the atheist is trying to shove atheism down your throat, then unless they are totally unreasonable and immature, they are implicitly inviting you to meet them where they are at and engage with them on the same level. Most vocal atheists who give theists (especially religious theists) a hard time do not respect people who practice their religion without debating their faith. Many of them (due to the influence of people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, and others) see religion as a poison, as a detriment to human flourishing, as something which should be eradicated (through satire, mockery, debate, etc.). They, at least, will not respect you being religious, and they will be frustrated by you keeping it to yourself even when they try to get you to engage with them in debate - they will no doubt interpret that as you quarantining your faith, avoiding challenges to it. This not only has the effect of letting them down, but also of increasing the confidence they have in the caricature of religion which they have (i.e., that it’s an irrational enterprise, something which, to be sustained in the long term, needs to be free from criticism).

With all due respect, the atheist you have in mind is 30+ years old. If you don’t adjust yourself appropriately, you’re going to do more harm than help if when atheists attack your faith you ‘keep it to yourself’ instead of engaging them. Preach the Gospel every day - sometimes, words really are necessary.

I think this assertion is idealistic. I think it is idealistic as it only applies to natural born debaters who engage in debate simply because they enjoy the exchange. The natural born debater can engage in playful debate as the natural born debater doesn’t really care what is being debated, just so long as something is and the debate has no objective in that no one is seeking to persuade anyone of anything, they just enjoy the exchange. Not every atheist is a natural born debater - and of course not every theist is not a natural born debater), though your post does not imply they are.

The New Atheist movement has bred a whole cult of amateur debaters. Unfortunately, they have tools and strategies (mostly bequeathed to them) which well meaning religious people, who are out-of-touch with this movement, aren’t at all equipped to deal with or even understand.

Being philosophically equipped will not enable you to get away with anything if you are dealing with someone who is unreasonable.

Obviously. Discretion is necessary.

The reasonable may respect the fact you are informed and have the capacity to articulate your arguments - the unreasonable will not as they are not interested in your arguments.

Why think that they are worth talking to? My suggestion was predicated on the assumption that the atheists who were being somewhat belligerent towards you were worth talking to.

They are only interested in what they think and will automatically reject any argument you present irrespective of how sound they are if not belittle and misinterpret them, and walk away from the debate believing they ‘won’ irrespective of how it went. There was a good reason why Jesus told his followers not to cast their pearls before swine.

Yeah, but with such a person (religious or non-religious) we shouldn’t engage the way I suggested. I’m doubtful that we should always oblige them when they want to berate us, or anyone else.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not rocket surgery…

Heh.

I thought it was:
-Rocket science.
-Brain surgery.

I suppose it could be:
-Rocket surgery.
-Brain science.

 

[minkymurph]

If the atheist is trying to shove atheism down your throat, then unless they are totally unreasonable and immature, they are implicitly inviting you to meet them where they are at and engage with them on the same level.

Not necessarily - they may just be telling you they think you are wrong.

Most vocal atheists who give theists (especially religious theists) a hard time do not respect people who practice their religion without debating their faith. Many of them (due to the influence of people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, and others) see religion as a poison, as a detriment to human flourishing, as something which should be eradicated (through satire, mockery, debate, etc.). They, at least, will not respect you being religious, and they will be frustrated by you keeping it to yourself even when they try to get you to engage with them in debate - they will no doubt interpret that as you quarantining your faith, avoiding challenges to it. This not only has the effect of letting them down, but also of increasing the confidence they have in the caricature of religion which they have (i.e., that it’s an irrational enterprise, something which, to be sustained in the long term, needs to be free from criticism).

I had not actually heard of Sam Lawrence or Lawrence Krauss. I have of heard of Richard Dawkins. I am never likely to meet him but if I did, I would not see the point in engaging in dialogue with him. Better people than me have tried. As to increasing his confidence, I would say it’s next to impossible. I have also heard it said the worst thing you can’t do to something is ignore them.

With all due respect, the atheist you have in mind is 30+ years old. If you don’t adjust yourself appropriately, you’re going to do more harm than help if when atheists attack your faith you ‘keep it to yourself’ instead of engaging them. Preach the Gospel every day - sometimes, words really are necessary.

Your right - the atheist I have in mind is 30+, but being 30+ most atheists I know are in my age group. I don’t hang out with teeny boppers very often, other than my teenage children’s friends they are more interested in what’s on their ipod and add on’s for their games than my or any else’s philosophy.

If you don’t mind I’ll decline your suggestion I ‘adjust myself appropriately.’ By and large I don’t follow suggestions of this nature proposed by virtual strangers on an internet forum. I also make a conscious effort to avoid making them to others.

I wasn’t suggesting I never defend myself or my ideals or philosophy and passively take everything that’s dished out, it’s a matter of picking your battles and knowing what you can change and what you can’t.

The New Atheist movement has bred a whole cult of amateur debaters. Unfortunately, they have tools and strategies (mostly bequeathed to them) which well meaning religious people, who are out-of-touch with this movement, aren’t at all equipped to deal with or even understand.

I started a thread on new atheism.

I also discussed it at length on another thread with a couple of atheist’s who post on CAF. They didn’t seem that interested in new atheism, but maybe they are in the 30+ group.

Obviously. Discretion is necessary.

Why think that they are worth talking to? My suggestion was predicated on the assumption that the atheists who were being somewhat belligerent towards you were worth talking to.

I don’t think they are worth talking to. Don’t understand the subsequent statement - sorry.

Yeah, but with such a person (religious or non-religious) we shouldn’t engage the way I suggested. I’m doubtful that we should always oblige them when they want to berate us, or anyone else.

Which is what I was saying.

I agree where we do engage in dialogue yes we need to be informed, but hearts were never won by clever argument. Actions speak louder than words so we need to back up what we say by how we live our lives. Maybe some people are out of touch with subsequent generations, but that can said of us all. When I was 17 I recall a friend of mine who was the same saying she had no desire to go out with a guy who obviously fancied her as, ‘he was an oul lad of 24.’

My youngest son tells me his form teacher is middle aged - around 30.

 

[exnihilo]

---

• I tried my best to stay quiet in the setting I was in, but this was beyond just “God does not exist” stuff. This was as profane and blasphemous as it gets.
• It’s a difficult setting to describe, but it was along the lines of mutual acquaintances.
• I call it abuse, because I’m slowly discovering the trend of atheists “overreaching” with their vitriol. But then, that’s common for the End Time I suppose…

Shake the dust from your feet and leave. Leave because some people are given over to evil. They are dangerous to your body and soul.

 

[Tyrel]

Not necessarily - they may just be telling you they think you are wrong.

If they make hay of it, then they aren’t just telling you that they think you’re wrong. They’re telling you that they think you’re wrong and that it’s important.

I had not actually heard of Sam [Harris] or Lawrence Krauss. I have of heard of Richard Dawkins. I am never likely to meet him,] but if I did I would not see the point in engaging in dialogue with him. Better people than me have tried. As to increasing his confidence, I would say it’s next to impossible. I have also heard it said the worst thing you [can] do to some[one] is [to] ignore them.

Why would you want to do the worst thing you could do to someone? Atheists should be treated with dignity, respect, and as adults who are capable of handling some well-deserved criticism for their own beliefs. At least that should go for the adult atheists who are bold enough to vocally challenge you to defend your own beliefs. I don’t think we should ignore them. I don’t think we should coddle them either. We should just show them why they are wrong.

If I ever meet Dawkins, I would be eager to dialogue with him.

[You’re] right - the atheist I have in mind is 30+, but being 30+,] most atheists I know are in my age group. I don’t hang out with teeny boppers very often, other than my teenage children’s friends , and] they are more interested in what’s on their ipod and add-ons for their games than my or any[one] else’s philosophy.

That’s true for now, but today’s generation is growing up with a set of influences which don’t bode well for their future, and one of the biggest ones is this popular relatively militant form of atheism which regards religion as a poison which civilization must eventually shed to progress. This view is jejune, yes, but if it goes unchallenged (or isn’t challenged in the appropriate way) it will seep into the culture at large, and that is something I’d rather not see happen.

If you don’t mind I’ll decline your suggestion I ‘adjust myself appropriately.’ By and large, I don’t follow suggestions of this nature proposed by virtual strangers on an internet forum. I also make a conscious effort to avoid making them to others.

Obviously, I don’t mind at all… but it does make me curious as to why you started this thread. Wasn’t it to invite suggestions of this sort from virtual strangers on the internet? Did I just misunderstand your intentions?

I agree where we do engage in dialogue yes we need to be informed, but hearts were never won by clever argument.

This is false. I myself was an evangelical who was in the process of deconverting, and becoming an atheist. I was, very much to my surprise, turned away from atheism and towards Catholicism in large part because of the influence of philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas, F.C. Copleston, and others. It was primarily arguments for God’s existence which led me, while renovating my belief system, to reset the foundation of my worldview on generic theism. It was in large part thanks to subsequent arguments which I discovered that I stumbled my way (very uncomfortably) into the Catholic Church. I, at least, am largely a product of Catholic apologetics. Obviously, nobody is converted by arguments alone, but to act as though arguments do not significantly catalyze changes in both the mind and the heart is dangerously naïve. Moreover, even if arguments don’t change minds overnight, they have tremendous value for the health of culture at large. It is one thing for atheists to raise their arguments and be met with arguments which don’t convince them. It is quite another for atheists to raise their arguments and be left with a deafening silence from religious people, and especially from even the Catholics.

 

[minkymurph]

Obviously, I don’t mind at all… but it does make me curious as to why you started this thread. Wasn’t it to invite suggestions of this sort from virtual strangers on the internet? Did I just misunderstand your intentions?

I didn’t start this thread.

My only intention was to respond to the OP’s question in the best way I knew how.

This is false. I myself was an evangelical who was in the process of deconverting, and becoming an atheist. I was, very much to my surprise, turned away from atheism and towards Catholicism in large part because of the influence of philosophers like St. Thomas Aquinas, F.C. Copleston, and others. It was primarily arguments for God’s existence which led me, while renovating my belief system, to reset the foundation of my worldview on generic theism. It was in large part thanks to subsequent arguments which I discovered that I stumbled my way (very uncomfortably) into the Catholic Church. I, at least, am largely a product of Catholic apologetics. Obviously, nobody is converted by arguments alone, but to act as though arguments do not significantly catalyze changes in both the mind and the heart is dangerously naïve. Moreover, even if arguments don’t change minds overnight, they have tremendous value for the health of culture at large. It is one thing for atheists to raise their arguments and be met with arguments which don’t convince them. It is quite another for atheists to raise their arguments and be left with a deafening silence from religious people, and especially from even the Catholics.

As this is your experience I can understand your line of reasoning, but the most persuasive arguments are those that are presented through the eyes of those we are presenting the arguments to and not our own. Not everyone comes to this topic with your eyes, nor mine.

 

[Tyrel]

I didn’t start this thread.

Oh, I see, you were just saying that you weren’t inclined to take my advice (offered to somebody else). I understand now. Sorry about that.

As this is your experience I can understand your line of reasoning, but the most persuasive arguments are those that are presented through the eyes of those we are presenting the arguments to and not our own. Not everyone comes to this topic with your eyes, nor mine.

This is true, and obvious. However, building a psychological profile of people based on key pieces of information is a useful way to approach the challenge of dealing with those people. An atheist who vocally attacks religion in the first world is very likely male, very likely on the young side, and very likely to be impacted positively by thoughtful arguments.

 

[Vonsalza]

An atheist who vocally attacks religion in the first world is very likely male, very likely on the young side, and very likely to be impacted positively by thoughtful arguments.

As the Face of Zealotry is generally (but not exclusively) young and male, I find them to be deliberately obtuse to rational, contrarian arguments.

But perhaps those you encounter are more reasonable than those I encounter.

 

[Tyrel]

As the Face of Zealotry is generally (but not exclusively) young and male, I find them to be deliberately obtuse to rational, contrarian arguments.

But perhaps those you encounter are more reasonable than those I encounter.

Suppose that they are relatively obtuse (for the sake of argument, and on average). I think I could still argue persuasively that it is better for them, and not just for the culture at large, if they are confronted with thoughtful arguments. It is better for helping them exercise their intellects, it is better for helping them mature into the full stature of adulthood, it is better for cultivating friendships, and it is better for helping them keep their minds and hearts open in the long run. Arguments do not have to convince people overnight to be successful or worthwhile.