Why engage in religious debates?

Yay! 🙂

ping (did I do that right? Not a big messenger guy, assuming it means got something for ya).

The website is amazing. Kudos for creating a very intreging and thought provoking place. Later,

I do disagree that you can change a stringly-held belief, but as I said in a diary entry recently, that’s not my goal when I debate. My goal is not to change their minds; it is to make it manifestly clear that they are not worthwhile models to follow. http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=A434612&entry=22956

Now you’re concerned about whether the argument that “the belief that homosexuality is true” is TRUE or not. Nope, Still just trying to get you to tell me what actually a sin is. You seem mighty reluctant. I tried asking directly. I tried humbly asking directly. The last try was to challenge the notion by your rules. Still, unwilling to qualify sin, but dying to claim it’s unjustified.

ry other n; I didn’t reference enough of this entry in my entry? I suppose I could get around to writing a direct entry to this one. In general though, I think it’s little light to explain all this (I’m making a wide open arm gesture to indicate the whole of this diary).

ry other other n; I at least told you why I wasn’t answering those questions, why aren’t you answering mine?

Apparently, I could clasify myself as a charitable organization. Maybe I should…

I read your page, Bum. It’s quite an opus. Please understand that even when you infuriate me, I’ve done my best to be respectful of your views, so what I am about to say now is not in the interest of cutting you down, but actually opening a dialogue that could mean something. If a Christian or Muslim read your page, there is a chance that meaningful conservation would never occur.

The reason is not because of the obvious difference in views or perspective, but because of the overgeneralizations that you seem to be making about anyone of faith. At several points in your discussion, I thought to myself, “I don’t know what church he is going to or where this doctrine would come from, but I don’t know any people who hold it.” I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but more…

…specificity about what groups you’re referring to would go a long way in actually fostering “conversation” with Christians and Muslims. If you’re instead trying to rally the folks who agree with you, there’s no need to change a thing–they’ll likely already agree with you. But in that case, what exactly would Conversational atheism be about?

There is a great deal of variety in the views inside the Christian and Muslim communities. The social and ethical programs between these different communities is meaningful, and attaching the same set of statements to all of the communities is a logical error which will actually reduce the power of your argumentation.

It’s not enough to simply know enough about Dawkins or Rorty or Hitchen’s work to be able to come up with a book or site full of “scripts” which could be used in discussion unless you also take a serious and respectful look at the people you’re discussing the issue with. The overgeneralization (or flat falsities) asserted as truth in your statements will cause problems for those who use your work

You might also interact with the people who’ve made counterarguments to those forwarded by the folks I’ve just mentioned, and others like them. There would be good reasons to do so as a means of preparation for real conversation. While it’s true that many Christians/Muslims (at least in this country) aren’t able to make cogent arguments, that doesn’t excuse sloth from those who would disagree.