Atheists Debate Tactics

Originally posted by twhitehead
You wouldn't get very far given that atheism isn't a religion and has nothing whatsoever that you can learn about it - apart from its definition which you clearly haven't yet learned despite being told over and over and over.

Didn't you say just a few posts back how one should engage those with beliefs dissimilar to one's own?
But then here, you claim the non-religious status of atheism.
In other posts here, when discussing atheism you intone the spiritual nature of it.
Very mixed signals, IMO.
If atheism is not a religion, then how does a person who believes in the supernatural engage someone who (allegedly) has no beliefs?
What is spirituality, in your opinion?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
In other posts here, when discussing atheism you intone the spiritual nature of it.

Please refer me to one of these posts. I am not aware of ever intoning the spiritual nature of atheism.

Very mixed signals, IMO.
More likely the mixing occurred in your interpretation.

If atheism is not a religion, then how does a person who believes in the supernatural engage someone who (allegedly) has no beliefs?
Why must atheism be a religion for you to engage me?

What is spirituality, in your opinion?
It has a wide range of meaning - mostly rather vague. I haven't really given it much thought.
I think Wikipedia sums it up nicely:

Traditionally spirituality has been defined as a process of personal transformation in accordance with religious ideals. Since the 19th century spirituality is often separated from religion, and has become more oriented on subjective experience and psychological growth. It may refer to almost any kind of meaningful activity or blissful experience, but without a single, widely-agreed definition.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Didn't you say just a few posts back how one should engage those with beliefs dissimilar to one's own?
But then here, you claim the non-religious status of atheism.
In other posts here, when discussing atheism you intone the spiritual nature of it.
Very mixed signals, IMO.
If atheism is not a religion, then how does a person who believes in the ...[text shortened]... ernatural engage someone who (allegedly) has no beliefs?
What is spirituality, in your opinion?

We could discuss unicorns without either of us having a belief in them.

We can also discuss religion, which atheists do believe in (the existence of religion).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please refer me to one of these posts. I am not aware of ever intoning the spiritual nature of atheism.

[b]Very mixed signals, IMO.
More likely the mixing occurred in your interpretation.

If atheism is not a religion, then how does a person who believes in the supernatural engage someone who (allegedly) has no beliefs?
Why must atheism ...[text shortened]... ningful activity or blissful experience, but without a single, widely-agreed definition.[/quote][/b]

Please refer me to one of these posts. I am not aware of ever intoning the spiritual nature of atheism.
I went back and re-read the posts and it suddenly dawned on me: firing off posts at the end of the day isn't the best method.
Apparently I was reading the tag-team posts between you and FMF and mixing the two in one amalgamation.
My error.

That being said, I will hone in on one point you actually did make: your definition of spirituality.
As some are aware, the Spirituality Forum was an attempt by the folks running the forums to 'clean up' some of traffic from the Debates.
This was before either of us got here in 2005, but apparently the topic of God was such a large subtext to the forum they thought it warranted being granted its own heading.
To this day when the topic is raised on Debates (and others), one can nearly predict the oft-repeated rejoinder: take it to Spirituality, Spanky.

Although you haven't really given it much thought, those who made the decision and were in charge of design did, and defined what would guide the discussions in a somewhat restrictive sense.
As has been quoted herein by GB, the purpose of the forum is to...
Debate and general discussion of the supernatural, religion, and the life after.

Since inception, the fourth most popular forum of all current 15 total--- even ahead of sports, curiously.
But the point is (despite the nebulous definition from Wiki), this forum was specifically intended to mainly discuss three of the big questions against which atheism is adamantly opposed.

There are a couple handfuls of very vocal and engaged atheists who frequent the forum and spend the clear majority of their time continually tilting at the very thing for which the forum was created.
If the designers of this website were to analyze the traffic of discussion within this forum and opt to create a 16th forum dedicated to atheism and all that it involves, I can't imagine that forum doing even half as well as the Clubs Public Forum, created five years ago and still unable to break a thousand posts to date, averaging a very non-robust 3.8 posts a month since inception.

There are a few reasons why the forum would suffer from inattention, but I won't go into them just now.
This was more to underscore the disconnect prevalent in claiming atheism while frequenting a forum dedicated to debating/discussing issues related to God--- unless, of course, said atheist is defining spirituality differently than the tagline suggests (something along the lines of what you offered in the post to which I am responding) and is pursuing the same here.
The only problem with that last suggested scenario is that is clearly not the point of even a small percentage of threads/posts either initiated by or engaged in by atheists.

Yet I don't rule out the possibility that I am wrong.
Perhaps the whole point of separating any discussion about God from the Debates was to lump all conversations into one bin and let the kids go at it.
Even with that as a consideration, I still can't imagine the draw for anyone who has so clearly made up their mind on the topic of God (as most atheists herein have made abundantly clear) to continual conversations about that thing which they've already decided.
That's part of why I think the Atheists Only forum would suffer from general neglect: it's a one-hit wonder with no intention or energy for follow-up.
The atheist needs the theist in order to have any relevance; without him, life is pretty boring...

A web site for non-chess players would probably not be successful.
What would an atheist forum discuss?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The atheist needs the theist in order to have any relevance; without him, life is pretty boring...

Only when it comes to discussions about God.
I think your error is in thinking that atheists are here to discuss their religion, despite it being obvious that they are not. Do you see any threads dedicated to atheism in which the only participants are atheists?
You seem to think that because atheists don't believe in God they must never discuss the concept ever again.
The reason I first posted in this forum, is I started a thread in debates regarding the teaching of creationism in schools in the US. I was told to 'take it to spirituality, Spanky'. I have been here ever since and don't spend a lot of time in debates because they mostly discuss US politics which I don't find very interesting.
I spend sometime in science, but there isn't as much debate there because people tend to agree more.
But apart from this site, I hardly ever discuss religion. It occasionally comes up but only about once or twice a year. I spend my time on work, with my son, learning Chinese, watching Korean soapies, studying a variety of subjects on edX, reading books on a Kindle, watching youtube, ice skating and so on.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Only when it comes to discussions about God.
I think your error is in thinking that atheists are here to discuss their religion, despite it being obvious that they are not. Do you see any threads dedicated to atheism in which the only participants are atheists?
You seem to think that because atheists don't believe in God they must never discuss the conc ...[text shortened]... variety of subjects on edX, reading books on a Kindle, watching youtube, ice skating and so on.

No, I don't see posts dedicated to atheism, and I consider that mostly due to the relatively short shelf life such a topic would enjoy.
I didn't mean to hint at disenfranchisement for any and all atheists, least of all you.
Despite my complaints otherwise, I am thoroughly benefited and enriched when challenged by atheists such as yourself on my beliefs, and more in particular, how those beliefs inform both my micro- and macro-practices.

The only thing I find boring and cannot relent from is the constant barrage over the same issue, i.e., proof for God's existence.
Although most of the posters here privately consider themselves capable of maintaining disciplined categorical thought, the overwhelming majority of us are potshots armed with an online thesaurus.
So I defer to those men and few women throughout history who have subjected their minds to the academic study of philosophy with success.
There are a good amount of said critical thinkers who conclude that God exists and has spoken to man, and there are a good amount of the same who hold the opposite view.
No one of them have been able to produce the definitive answer to the question, and the question remains unsettled after years of posts here.

That being said, I propose a type of cease-fire.
Instead of treading trodden trails which continually collapse upon themselves without gaining any ground, I suggest we simply assume that God exists, if, for no other reason, man has historically believed He does.
Kind of a 'dibs' situation, if you will.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I suggest we simply assume that God exists, if, for no other reason, man has historically believed He does.

OK

which one?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That being said, I propose a type of cease-fire.
Instead of treading trodden trails which continually collapse upon themselves without gaining any ground, I suggest we simply assume that God exists, if, for no other reason, man has historically believed He does.
Kind of a 'dibs' situation, if you will.

What you are proposing is not a cease-fire but a surrender. Atheists, pretty much by definition, assume that gods do not exist. So proposing that they "assume that God exists" is basically asking them to renounce their core position. If I suggested that, from now on in this forum, you assume that the Christian god is fiction, I hardly think you would consider this a "cease-fire" proposal.

Secondly, I think that many atheists here (myself included) believe that asking for "proof for God's existence" is the most important argument we make. Asking us to forgo this argument is also asking us to surrender, and is not a cease-fire proposal.

Also, there seems to be two basic types of threads on this forum: theist-only threads and theists/non-theist threads. The theist-only threads basically do as you wish (assume the Christian god's existence). Threads like "Immortality of the Soul," and "Suicide and hell" don't seem to have much interference from non-theists (although I have only skimmed them, so I might be mistaken). For instance, I haven't seen any atheists asking for proof of hell's existence in the suicide and hell thread. Other threads are clearly meant for theist/non-theist discussions (like "Atheists Debate Tactics" or "Is evolution a religion?" ), and these should be fair game for everyone. If a person wants to avoid "proof of god" arguments, and wants only to see threads where the Christian god's existence is assumed, staying in the theist-only threads seems to go a long way toward accomplishing this.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, I don't see posts dedicated to atheism, and I consider that mostly due to the relatively short shelf life such a topic would enjoy..

Which is mostly because atheism isn't a religion.

The only thing I find boring and cannot relent from is the constant barrage over the same issue, i.e., proof for God's existence.
I have to point out that that issue is as contentious in the theist community as it is in the mixed community. Some theists think such proof exists, others do not.

No one of them have been able to produce the definitive answer to the question, and the question remains unsettled after years of posts here.
I disagree. I think a definitive answer has been found, but you don't like it.

Instead of treading trodden trails which continually collapse upon themselves without gaining any ground, I suggest we simply assume that God exists, if, for no other reason, man has historically believed He does.
If you don't like a topic, ignore it.

Kind of a 'dibs' situation, if you will
Sorry, but atheists called dibs first, so lets instead assume that God does not exist. Oops, then the forum will go silent as you will have nothing to discuss.
Equally, if I assume God exists, then I will have nothing to discuss either. I have absolutely no interest in discussing the attributes of unicorns, Santa Clause or other imaginary creatures and the only reason for my involvement in the discussions here is because theists believe something different from what I believe.